Greetings All!
Senator Chris Hall (563-8604 chrishall@tidewater.net) will be testifying at the public hearing for the proposed rule change for the rabies immunization requirement for dogs, DHS Chapter 260, scheduled for Tuesday, August 31st from 1:30 - 3:00 in Room 220 of the Cross State Office Building in Augusta (behind the statehouse). I urge you all to come as there is a significant flaw in the drafted language -- there are no medical exceptions for dogs. In addition to Senator Hall, Peter and I will be making public comments. Your presence will be critical, even if you choose not to speak, as it will reflect the level of concern in the dog-owning community. Once this law goes into effect, you'll be required to obey it, so if you're concerned about lack of medical exceptions for dogs, you need to come to the hearing or submit written comments. Written comments will be accepted until September 10th and should be sent to Dr. Philip W. Haines, Deputy Director Bureau of Health, Maine Department of Human Services, 11 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0011 FAX 207-287-9058 philip.w.haines@maine.gov.
If your dog has cancer, as mine does (at the site of his last rabies shot), and your veterinarian has advised against further vaccinations, the law will still require your dog to have a rabies shot. If your dog has suffered allergic or anaphylactic reactions to the rabies vaccine in the past, it will still be required by law to have it, there is no provision for veterinary discretion. As drafted, the rabies rule change for dogs will require dogs facing life-threatening risks from the rabies vaccine to be vaccinated!!! You must come to the hearing or send in written comments if you are concerned about the lack of medical exceptions for dogs under the new rabies immunization requirement for dogs. Many of you on my list are professional dog trainers, breeders, veterinarians, vet techs, etc... your help is needed here -- I am just a homeschooling mom & yet, I, not the subset members am the one who initially brought the flawed law to the state's attention and the lack of medical exemptions. There may be something I'm missing, your input is vital!
The requirement for rabies immunizing cats, does allow medical exemptions, but the law for dogs does not (http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes ... c3916.html under 4. Exception: An owner or keeper of a cat is exempt from the requirements of subsection 1 if a medical reason exists that precludes the vaccination of the cat. To qualify for this exemption, the owner or keeper must have a written statement signed by a licensed veterinarian that includes a description of the cat and the medical reason that precludes the vaccination.)
Despite the fact that 4 veterinarians are members of the subset of the Rabies Working Group (3 state veterinarians and one private, the President of the Maine Veterinary Medical Association, Dr. Bill Bryant), they failed to notice that the law required dogs to be overvaccinated for rabies for more than 17 years, making them receive a 3 year protective rabies vaccination every 2 years in order to get a dog license. This law, by the way, forced veterinarians to administer the rabies vaccine contrary to the drug manufacturer's labeled instructions (http://www.valleyvet.com/ct_library_inf ... mp=1003181) which state: "Revaccinate both dogs and cats every 3 years."
Cats, however, were not likewise required to be overvaccinated for rabies (see http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes ... c3916.html), instead they were allowed to conform to the (NASPHV) National Association of State Public Health Veterinarian recommendations (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5008a1.htm) which state: "All vaccines must be administered in accordance with the specifications of the product label or package insert."
Anyone wishing to have a copy of the drafted language in the rule change, please e-mail me and I will send it to you as an attachment, which is how the State sent it to me. Contact information is listed below, as is language from the current rabies immunization requirement for dogs. The State managed to get the rabies immunization requirements right for cats, but not for dogs. You must take action to protect your canine companions!
Cheers, Kris
Senator Chris Hall (207) 563-8604, chrishall@tidewater.net
Kris & Peter Christine (207) 586-5043, Peter's cell: (207) 592-2951, work 563-1772 ledgespring@lincoln.midcoast.com
Maine State Officials working on the canine rabies regulation:
Dori Harnett, Senior Assistant Attorney General 626-8827
Paul Gauvreau, Assistant Attorney General 626-8800
Richard Davies, Governor Baldacci's Senior Policy Advisor 287-3531
Dr. Kathleen Gensheimer (state epidemiologist for Bureau of Health) 287-5183
Dr. Phil Haines (Deputy Dir. Bureau of Health) 287-3290
Dr. Robert Gholson (State Public Health Veterinarian, Division of Disease Control Bureau of Health) 287-3361, 287-2770
Norma Worley, Director of Animal Welfare, Dept. Agriculture 287-5531
Shelley Doak, Director Division of Animal Health & Industry 287-7610
Dr. Donald E. Hoenig, State Veterinarian Dept. Agriculture 287-3701
Dr. Christine Fraser, State Veterinarian, Dept. Agriculture, Division Animal Welfare 287-3846
The following link from the Maine Department of Human Services, which sets the policy for animal vaccinations, and look under Chapter 260: Regulations Regarding Rabies Immunization Requirement for Dog Licensure http://www.state.me.us/sos/cec/rcn/apa/10/chaps10.htm
3(a) The certificate must show that the date of immunization has been within 360 days for a primary immunization or within 730 days for a booster immunization.
3 (b) Booster rabies immunization must be conducted with a vaccine protecting for three years.
state rabies vaccination law making animals sick
41 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
I hereby urge this Bureau to change the existing ordinance
by guest » Tue Aug 24, 2004 5:57 pm
Critter Fixer Pet Hospital
Bob Rogers DVM
5703 Louetta Spring, Texas 77379 281-370-3262
August 17, 2004
Dr Philip W. Haines, Deputy Director
Bureau of Health Maine Department of Human Services
11 State House Station, Key Plaza 8th Floor
Augusta, ME 04333-0011
Dear Dr Haines,
I hereby urge this Bureau to change the existing ordinance requiring bi -annual rabies vaccination for pets to an every three-year ordinance. In making this decision please consider the following facts and enclosed scientific publications:
1. The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians recommendation is for vaccination of dogs and cats for rabies at four months, one year later, and then every three years subsequently. Alternatively cats can be vaccinated with a non-adjuvanted one-year licensed vaccine annually to avoid injection site fibrosarcoma. Three year licensing for this product is pending.
2. All Rabies vaccines currently licensed by the USDA as three- year vaccines are proven to have minimum duration of immunity of three years by challenge. All data submitted to the USDA demonstrated 100% efficacy for three years. Of course no vaccine is 100% effective, and there will be rare vaccine breaks. This is because a bite that occurs close to a cranial nerve allows the virus to readily enter the CNS,the animal will get rabies regardless of how many vaccines it has had.
3. Rabies vaccine has been demonstrated to have a minimum duration of immunity of seven years by serology by Dr Ron Schultz, and 4 years for cats and 5 years for dogs by challenge by Aubert. If a client is late for re- administration there is still plenty of a buffer zone of protection with the three-year interval.
Schultz, Ronald D, Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines: What We Know and What We Don't Know, Proceedings - Canine Infectious Diseases: >From Clinics to Molecular Pathogenesis, Ithaca, NY, 1999, 22
Aubert Michel F, The practical significance of rabies antibodies in cats and dogs, Scientific and Technical Revue, 11(3) 735, 1992 Paris, France
4. Scientific data shows that beyond the second rabies vaccination, the immune status of the pet is not enhanced. Antibody titers are not elevated; memory cell populations are not expanded. Antibodies from previous vaccines prevent the new vaccine virus from even reaching the immune system.
HogenenEsch Harm, Dunham Anisa D, Scott-Moncrieff Catharine, Glickman Larry, DeBoer Douglas J, Effect of vaccination on serum concentrations of total and antigen-specific immunoglobulin E in dogs, AJVR, Vol. 63, No. 4, April 2002, pg 611-616.
Wolf, Alice M., Vaccinations-What's right? What's not? Compendium on
Continuing Education, Schering-Plough Animal Health, 1999.
Wolf Alice, Vaccines of the Present and Future, Proceedings of the World Animal Veterinary Congress, Vancouver 2001.
5. When the rabies vaccine is re-administered annually or bi annually "The client is paying for something with no effect except the patient is being exposed to the risk of an adverse reaction." Schultz, Ronald D., "Are we vaccinating too much?" JAVMA, No. 4, August 15, 1995, pg. 421.
6. "The three-year interval has been proven effective in 33 States in the United States. Many of these states have had tri-annual requirements for 25 years, and yet there is no more apparent risk to pets or the public of rabies. "This is unequivocal epidemiologic evidence that the three-year interval is effective." Jane Mahlow DVM, Director of Zoonosis Control for the Texas Department of Public Health, in her address to the Board, February 14, 2003.
7. The opinion of the American Association of Feline Practitioners is that "Administration of rabies virus vaccines to cats is subject to inconsistent state and local statutes. In some cases, the requirements fail to consider the duration of protection such vaccines induce; annual administration of rabies vaccines approved for triennial administration is required in many locals. Veterinary organizations should continue to work with state and local governing bodies to ensure that rabies virus vaccine regulations are consistent with the known duration of immunity of available vaccines." Richards J, 2000 Report of the American Association of Feline Practitioners and the Academy of Feline Medicine Advisory Panel on Feline Vaccines.
8. The opinion of the American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents states; "Local and regional regulatory authorities mandate revaccination schedules including some that are more frequent than necessary as demonstrated by scientific evidence." Klingborg, Hustead, Curry Galvan, AVMA Council On Biologic and Therapeutic Agent's report on cat and dog vaccines, JAVMA,Vol 221, No 10, Nov 15, 2002.
9. The position of the American Animal Hospital Association is; "Every effort should be made to change laws that require vaccination with this rabies product more often than every three years since annual vaccinations cannot be shown to increase efficacy and it is known to increase adverse events" Paul, Michael, Report of the American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Task Force: 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature, AAHA Foundation, March 2003.
10. The Opinion of the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians states: "There are no laboratory or epidemiologic data to support the annual or biennial administration of 3- year vaccines following the initial series." Jenkins, S. R., Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, 2003 Vet Med Today: Public Vet Med, JAVMA, Vol. 222, No 2, Jan 15, 2003
I understand the purpose and responsibility of this Bureau is to protect public health.I know it is not the responsibility of the Bureau of Health to consider the welfare of the pets. I would like to assume this Bureau would make a moral and ethical decision. Cats are getting cancer from vaccines. It is estimated that 22,000 cats will die every year from vaccine- associated sarcomas. The recommendation of the American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Vaccine -Associated Sarcomas is to reduce the number of vaccines given to cats. A temporal relationship has been shown between vaccines and hypothyroidism and vaccines and immune mediated hemolytic anemia in dogs. Again reducing the number of vaccines reduces the risk of adverse reactions.
I question whether a bi- annual rabies vaccination ordinance is legal, as it requires clients to purchase vaccines, which have no effect, and it requires Veterinarians to administer unnecessary vaccinations.
Please have the Bureau specify what procedure to follow when a dog or cat is late for its booster vaccination in accordance with the following publication:
Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, 2004
National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, Inc. (NASPHV)
Part II: Rabies Control
B. Control Methods in Domestic and Confined Animals
(a) Dogs, Cats, and Ferrets
All dogs, cats, and ferrets should be vaccinated against rabies and revaccinated in accordance with Part III of this Compendium. If a previously vaccinated animal is overdue for a booster, it should be revaccinated with a single dose of vaccine. Immediately following the booster, the animal is considered currently vaccinated and should be placed on an annual or triennial schedule depending on the type of vaccine used.
Please make allowance for exemptions to the rabies vaccination requirements for dogs and cats with medical problems, which predispose to adverse reaction form vaccination.
Many Veterinarians oppose the change in this requirement for one reason or another. Obviously they have a vested financial interest in giving more vaccines.
Your consideration of these facts is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Bob Rogers DVM
Critter Fixer Pet Hospital
Bob Rogers DVM
5703 Louetta Spring, Texas 77379 281-370-3262
August 16, 2004
Senator Hall,
Every year the people of Maine spend over $13 million dollars on vaccinations for their pets that are unnecessary and potentially harmful. Administration of vaccines like rabies distemper and parvovirus on an annual or bi-annual basis has been proven scientifically to have no effect. In the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, August 15, 1995 in an article entitled "Are we vaccinating too much?" Dr Ron Schultz states, "The client is paying for something with no effect except it exposes the pet to the unnecessary risk of an adverse reaction. "
Veterinarians vaccinate adult dogs annually for corona virus in spite of the fact there is no scientific evidence adult dogs develop any disease from this virus.
Every year dozens of cats in Maine die from injection site fibrosarcomas caused by vaccines. Veterinarians have known about this potential side effect for cats for 10 years. In spite of the fact that non- adjuvanted vaccines have been shown to be five times safer, only 10% of Veterinarians use this safer rabies vaccine. The average cat by twelve years of age, with the prevailing recommendations would receive 107 antigens. With the recommendations for the American Association of Feline Practitioners and 22 Vet Schools the same twelve-year-old cat would only receive 32 antigens.
Dogs are developing Immune Mediated Hemolytic Anemia from vaccines. With the prevailing recommendations of most Veterinarians, the average dog, by twelve years of age, with the current prevailing vaccine recommendations will receive between 157 to 183 antigens. With the recommendations of the American Animal Hospital Association and 22 Vet Schools the same twelve-year old dog would only receive 37 antigens.
It is the duty of the Maine Board of Veterinary Medicine to insure that Veterinarians deal ethically and honestly with the public, and do not recommend unnecessary vaccinations. The rules of professional conduct specifically and repeatedly prohibit recommendation and charging for unnecessary treatments. The Board is negligent in their duty to protect the public.
Clients should be informed, based on the latest scientific data, of the benefit and the risk of each vaccine. Vaccines should not be given; #1 more frequently than is beneficial, #2 where the lifestyle of the animal does not put it at risk, or #3 if the patient is not at risk of developing the disease either because of it's age, or because the disease is not present in that part of the State.
I support this Bill to require informed consent for veterinary vaccinations. Charging for vaccines that have no benefit and are potentially harmful is theft by deception and cruelty to animals.
Sincerely,
Dr Bob Rogers
Bob Rogers DVM
5703 Louetta Spring, Texas 77379 281-370-3262
August 17, 2004
Dr Philip W. Haines, Deputy Director
Bureau of Health Maine Department of Human Services
11 State House Station, Key Plaza 8th Floor
Augusta, ME 04333-0011
Dear Dr Haines,
I hereby urge this Bureau to change the existing ordinance requiring bi -annual rabies vaccination for pets to an every three-year ordinance. In making this decision please consider the following facts and enclosed scientific publications:
1. The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians recommendation is for vaccination of dogs and cats for rabies at four months, one year later, and then every three years subsequently. Alternatively cats can be vaccinated with a non-adjuvanted one-year licensed vaccine annually to avoid injection site fibrosarcoma. Three year licensing for this product is pending.
2. All Rabies vaccines currently licensed by the USDA as three- year vaccines are proven to have minimum duration of immunity of three years by challenge. All data submitted to the USDA demonstrated 100% efficacy for three years. Of course no vaccine is 100% effective, and there will be rare vaccine breaks. This is because a bite that occurs close to a cranial nerve allows the virus to readily enter the CNS,the animal will get rabies regardless of how many vaccines it has had.
3. Rabies vaccine has been demonstrated to have a minimum duration of immunity of seven years by serology by Dr Ron Schultz, and 4 years for cats and 5 years for dogs by challenge by Aubert. If a client is late for re- administration there is still plenty of a buffer zone of protection with the three-year interval.
Schultz, Ronald D, Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines: What We Know and What We Don't Know, Proceedings - Canine Infectious Diseases: >From Clinics to Molecular Pathogenesis, Ithaca, NY, 1999, 22
Aubert Michel F, The practical significance of rabies antibodies in cats and dogs, Scientific and Technical Revue, 11(3) 735, 1992 Paris, France
4. Scientific data shows that beyond the second rabies vaccination, the immune status of the pet is not enhanced. Antibody titers are not elevated; memory cell populations are not expanded. Antibodies from previous vaccines prevent the new vaccine virus from even reaching the immune system.
HogenenEsch Harm, Dunham Anisa D, Scott-Moncrieff Catharine, Glickman Larry, DeBoer Douglas J, Effect of vaccination on serum concentrations of total and antigen-specific immunoglobulin E in dogs, AJVR, Vol. 63, No. 4, April 2002, pg 611-616.
Wolf, Alice M., Vaccinations-What's right? What's not? Compendium on
Continuing Education, Schering-Plough Animal Health, 1999.
Wolf Alice, Vaccines of the Present and Future, Proceedings of the World Animal Veterinary Congress, Vancouver 2001.
5. When the rabies vaccine is re-administered annually or bi annually "The client is paying for something with no effect except the patient is being exposed to the risk of an adverse reaction." Schultz, Ronald D., "Are we vaccinating too much?" JAVMA, No. 4, August 15, 1995, pg. 421.
6. "The three-year interval has been proven effective in 33 States in the United States. Many of these states have had tri-annual requirements for 25 years, and yet there is no more apparent risk to pets or the public of rabies. "This is unequivocal epidemiologic evidence that the three-year interval is effective." Jane Mahlow DVM, Director of Zoonosis Control for the Texas Department of Public Health, in her address to the Board, February 14, 2003.
7. The opinion of the American Association of Feline Practitioners is that "Administration of rabies virus vaccines to cats is subject to inconsistent state and local statutes. In some cases, the requirements fail to consider the duration of protection such vaccines induce; annual administration of rabies vaccines approved for triennial administration is required in many locals. Veterinary organizations should continue to work with state and local governing bodies to ensure that rabies virus vaccine regulations are consistent with the known duration of immunity of available vaccines." Richards J, 2000 Report of the American Association of Feline Practitioners and the Academy of Feline Medicine Advisory Panel on Feline Vaccines.
8. The opinion of the American Veterinary Medical Association Council on Biologic and Therapeutic Agents states; "Local and regional regulatory authorities mandate revaccination schedules including some that are more frequent than necessary as demonstrated by scientific evidence." Klingborg, Hustead, Curry Galvan, AVMA Council On Biologic and Therapeutic Agent's report on cat and dog vaccines, JAVMA,Vol 221, No 10, Nov 15, 2002.
9. The position of the American Animal Hospital Association is; "Every effort should be made to change laws that require vaccination with this rabies product more often than every three years since annual vaccinations cannot be shown to increase efficacy and it is known to increase adverse events" Paul, Michael, Report of the American Animal Hospital Association Canine Vaccine Task Force: 2003 Canine Vaccine Guidelines, Recommendations, and Supporting Literature, AAHA Foundation, March 2003.
10. The Opinion of the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians states: "There are no laboratory or epidemiologic data to support the annual or biennial administration of 3- year vaccines following the initial series." Jenkins, S. R., Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, 2003 Vet Med Today: Public Vet Med, JAVMA, Vol. 222, No 2, Jan 15, 2003
I understand the purpose and responsibility of this Bureau is to protect public health.I know it is not the responsibility of the Bureau of Health to consider the welfare of the pets. I would like to assume this Bureau would make a moral and ethical decision. Cats are getting cancer from vaccines. It is estimated that 22,000 cats will die every year from vaccine- associated sarcomas. The recommendation of the American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force on Vaccine -Associated Sarcomas is to reduce the number of vaccines given to cats. A temporal relationship has been shown between vaccines and hypothyroidism and vaccines and immune mediated hemolytic anemia in dogs. Again reducing the number of vaccines reduces the risk of adverse reactions.
I question whether a bi- annual rabies vaccination ordinance is legal, as it requires clients to purchase vaccines, which have no effect, and it requires Veterinarians to administer unnecessary vaccinations.
Please have the Bureau specify what procedure to follow when a dog or cat is late for its booster vaccination in accordance with the following publication:
Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, 2004
National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, Inc. (NASPHV)
Part II: Rabies Control
B. Control Methods in Domestic and Confined Animals
(a) Dogs, Cats, and Ferrets
All dogs, cats, and ferrets should be vaccinated against rabies and revaccinated in accordance with Part III of this Compendium. If a previously vaccinated animal is overdue for a booster, it should be revaccinated with a single dose of vaccine. Immediately following the booster, the animal is considered currently vaccinated and should be placed on an annual or triennial schedule depending on the type of vaccine used.
Please make allowance for exemptions to the rabies vaccination requirements for dogs and cats with medical problems, which predispose to adverse reaction form vaccination.
Many Veterinarians oppose the change in this requirement for one reason or another. Obviously they have a vested financial interest in giving more vaccines.
Your consideration of these facts is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Bob Rogers DVM
Critter Fixer Pet Hospital
Bob Rogers DVM
5703 Louetta Spring, Texas 77379 281-370-3262
August 16, 2004
Senator Hall,
Every year the people of Maine spend over $13 million dollars on vaccinations for their pets that are unnecessary and potentially harmful. Administration of vaccines like rabies distemper and parvovirus on an annual or bi-annual basis has been proven scientifically to have no effect. In the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, August 15, 1995 in an article entitled "Are we vaccinating too much?" Dr Ron Schultz states, "The client is paying for something with no effect except it exposes the pet to the unnecessary risk of an adverse reaction. "
Veterinarians vaccinate adult dogs annually for corona virus in spite of the fact there is no scientific evidence adult dogs develop any disease from this virus.
Every year dozens of cats in Maine die from injection site fibrosarcomas caused by vaccines. Veterinarians have known about this potential side effect for cats for 10 years. In spite of the fact that non- adjuvanted vaccines have been shown to be five times safer, only 10% of Veterinarians use this safer rabies vaccine. The average cat by twelve years of age, with the prevailing recommendations would receive 107 antigens. With the recommendations for the American Association of Feline Practitioners and 22 Vet Schools the same twelve-year-old cat would only receive 32 antigens.
Dogs are developing Immune Mediated Hemolytic Anemia from vaccines. With the prevailing recommendations of most Veterinarians, the average dog, by twelve years of age, with the current prevailing vaccine recommendations will receive between 157 to 183 antigens. With the recommendations of the American Animal Hospital Association and 22 Vet Schools the same twelve-year old dog would only receive 37 antigens.
It is the duty of the Maine Board of Veterinary Medicine to insure that Veterinarians deal ethically and honestly with the public, and do not recommend unnecessary vaccinations. The rules of professional conduct specifically and repeatedly prohibit recommendation and charging for unnecessary treatments. The Board is negligent in their duty to protect the public.
Clients should be informed, based on the latest scientific data, of the benefit and the risk of each vaccine. Vaccines should not be given; #1 more frequently than is beneficial, #2 where the lifestyle of the animal does not put it at risk, or #3 if the patient is not at risk of developing the disease either because of it's age, or because the disease is not present in that part of the State.
I support this Bill to require informed consent for veterinary vaccinations. Charging for vaccines that have no benefit and are potentially harmful is theft by deception and cruelty to animals.
Sincerely,
Dr Bob Rogers
- guest
look how the 3yr law was written to allow every 2yr vac
by guest » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:03 am
Greetings!
The article below my lengthy comments appears in today's Portland Press Herald.
Remember, there is no medical exception written into the rule change as drafted . If you are concerned that dogs with cancer, those who have had anaphylactic responses to the rabies shots in the past, or those with other serious or life-threatening illnesses, be allowed to receive a medical exception from their veterinarian (this could be your companion animal some day), you must attend the public hearing or send written comments in to Dr. Phil Haines, Deputy Director; Bureau of Health, 11 State House Station; Agusuta ME 04333-0011 (207) 287-3290 philip.w.haines@maine.gov. Written comments will be accepted until September 10 and they can be e-mailed to Dr. Haines.
You should be aware, the same rabies vaccines are used to immunize both cats and dogs, yet the state will not afford dogs the same medical exceptions under the law to this same product that they allow under the law for cats. The product label from Fort Dodge's Rabvac vaccine label for dogs, cats & horses available at the following link states:
http://www.valleyvet.com/ct_library_inf ... mp=1003181
"Rabvac 1 is a killed virus vaccine for the vaccination of healthy dogs, cats and horses against rabies." As drafted, the new law will require veterinarians to once again administer the rabies vaccine contrary to the labeled manufacturers' specifications in the case of ill dogs.
Maine's medical exemptions for cats (http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes ... c3916.html under 4. Exception: An owner or keeper of a cat is exempt from the requirements of subsection 1 if a medical reason exists that precludes the vaccination of the cat. To qualify for this exemption, the owner or keeper must have a written statement signed by a licensed veterinarian that includes a description of the cat and the medical reason that precludes the vaccination.)
For more than 17 years, the state required us to overvaccinate our dogs for rabies -- DO NOT ASSUME THEY ARE GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING WITHOUT STRONG INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC! If you love your dog and want to make sure their health will not be compromised by being forced to have rabies vaccinations even if they are dying of cancer or suffer anaphylactic shock to the vaccine because the law does not allow any medical exceptions, SHOW UP AT THE HEARING, CALL THE STATE OR WRITE TO THEM BEFORE 9/10 at the number and address above!!! Once the rule is in place, you will be forced to comply with the law even if your veterinarian advises you NOT to vaccinate your dog due to a serious medical condition. Your dog needs you to take a strong, unequivocal stand to ensure their well-being!!! My dogs repeatedly prove that they will put their lives on the line to protect any and every member of my family -- I am sure the same is true for yours. Return the favor and take action on this!
Kris
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/ ... bies.shtml
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Rabies-shot law may change
By JOSIE HUANG, Portland Press Herald Writer
Copyright © 2004 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
E-mail this story to a friend
Also on this page:
HEARING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEARING
A public hearing on changes to Maine's rabies vaccination law will be from 1:30 to 3 p.m. Tuesday in Room 220, Cross State Building, Augusta. Written comment will be accepted until Sept. 10.
To top of story
A summer's worth of complaints from dog owners who worry about overvaccinating their pets has grabbed the state's attention.
Deluged by e-mails about dogs apparently falling ill from rabies shots, state officials have drafted a change to a confusing, decades-old regulation. They will take public feedback Tuesday in Augusta.
Many people have had the misimpression that a dog must be inoculated every two years to qualify for an annual license from a town or city, even though vaccine manufacturers and national canine experts recommend three-year intervals.
State officials say it's easy to see how dog owners were misled: The rule states that a dog's last rabies shot must be given within two years of the time of licensing. Conceivably, a dog could be vaccinated every three years, if the owner remembers to renew the license before the two years are up.
Say a shot is given today. To make the shot last three years, the owner must renew the license by Aug. 26, 2006.
If the rule change is adopted, however, licenses will be granted if the owner shows a certificate of immunization in effect at the time of licensing. That would allow owners to wait three years without worrying about fines or visits by a police officer.
Rabies vaccinations are also required for cats, but are difficult to enforce because state law does not require cats to be licensed.
Dr. Robert Gholson, veterinarian for Maine's Bureau of Health, describes the rule change as a "compromise," a response to "an outcry from the dog-owning community that was rightfully concerned."
But Gholson said the change would place a greater onus on owners to track their dogs' vaccinations. Someone could license a dog just days before a three-year-long immunization expires, he said.
"My concern is that if I were a dog owner . . . I may not get my dog re-immunized on schedule because I have a good license," Gholson said.
Veterinarians stress the importance of vaccinating against the fatal viral disease because of its continued presence in Maine. In 2003 there were 72 documented cases, though most were among raccoons and skunks, not dogs, because of Maine's strong vaccination program, Gholson said.
A dog that gets the vaccine needs only a booster shot if it is bitten by a wild animal; unvaccinated dogs are typically euthanized or placed under strict quarantine for six months.
Kris Christine thinks that veterinarians are being overly cautious.
Christine, who led the move for a change after her yellow Labrador, Meadow, developed a malignant tumor on a rabies vaccination site, points to new research from the University of Wisconsin that indicates rabies vaccines are effective for at least seven years.
"We certainly would never want a rabid raccoon or mouse to bite our dog and put our children and us at risk," said Christine, who lives in Alna, "but we also think it's a risk to overvaccinate and it doesn't benefit the animal at all."
Rabies shots can trigger low-grade fever, lethargy and, on the rare occasion, anaphylactic shock.
A three-year schedule, which reduces the chance for side effects, is the standard in nearly all states and is recommended by groups such as the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians.
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association maintains that biannual vaccinations have not been proven to hurt dogs over the long run, though some owners attribute this assertion to the state tracking illnesses in farm animals, not pets.
Christine said the proposed rule change represents a vast improvement, but she still sees a striking omission: There are no medical exemptions for sick dogs.
Staff Writer Josie Huang can be contacted at 791-6364 or at:
jhuang@pressherald.com
The article below my lengthy comments appears in today's Portland Press Herald.
Remember, there is no medical exception written into the rule change as drafted . If you are concerned that dogs with cancer, those who have had anaphylactic responses to the rabies shots in the past, or those with other serious or life-threatening illnesses, be allowed to receive a medical exception from their veterinarian (this could be your companion animal some day), you must attend the public hearing or send written comments in to Dr. Phil Haines, Deputy Director; Bureau of Health, 11 State House Station; Agusuta ME 04333-0011 (207) 287-3290 philip.w.haines@maine.gov. Written comments will be accepted until September 10 and they can be e-mailed to Dr. Haines.
You should be aware, the same rabies vaccines are used to immunize both cats and dogs, yet the state will not afford dogs the same medical exceptions under the law to this same product that they allow under the law for cats. The product label from Fort Dodge's Rabvac vaccine label for dogs, cats & horses available at the following link states:
http://www.valleyvet.com/ct_library_inf ... mp=1003181
"Rabvac 1 is a killed virus vaccine for the vaccination of healthy dogs, cats and horses against rabies." As drafted, the new law will require veterinarians to once again administer the rabies vaccine contrary to the labeled manufacturers' specifications in the case of ill dogs.
Maine's medical exemptions for cats (http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes ... c3916.html under 4. Exception: An owner or keeper of a cat is exempt from the requirements of subsection 1 if a medical reason exists that precludes the vaccination of the cat. To qualify for this exemption, the owner or keeper must have a written statement signed by a licensed veterinarian that includes a description of the cat and the medical reason that precludes the vaccination.)
For more than 17 years, the state required us to overvaccinate our dogs for rabies -- DO NOT ASSUME THEY ARE GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING WITHOUT STRONG INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC! If you love your dog and want to make sure their health will not be compromised by being forced to have rabies vaccinations even if they are dying of cancer or suffer anaphylactic shock to the vaccine because the law does not allow any medical exceptions, SHOW UP AT THE HEARING, CALL THE STATE OR WRITE TO THEM BEFORE 9/10 at the number and address above!!! Once the rule is in place, you will be forced to comply with the law even if your veterinarian advises you NOT to vaccinate your dog due to a serious medical condition. Your dog needs you to take a strong, unequivocal stand to ensure their well-being!!! My dogs repeatedly prove that they will put their lives on the line to protect any and every member of my family -- I am sure the same is true for yours. Return the favor and take action on this!
Kris
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/ ... bies.shtml
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Rabies-shot law may change
By JOSIE HUANG, Portland Press Herald Writer
Copyright © 2004 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
E-mail this story to a friend
Also on this page:
HEARING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEARING
A public hearing on changes to Maine's rabies vaccination law will be from 1:30 to 3 p.m. Tuesday in Room 220, Cross State Building, Augusta. Written comment will be accepted until Sept. 10.
To top of story
A summer's worth of complaints from dog owners who worry about overvaccinating their pets has grabbed the state's attention.
Deluged by e-mails about dogs apparently falling ill from rabies shots, state officials have drafted a change to a confusing, decades-old regulation. They will take public feedback Tuesday in Augusta.
Many people have had the misimpression that a dog must be inoculated every two years to qualify for an annual license from a town or city, even though vaccine manufacturers and national canine experts recommend three-year intervals.
State officials say it's easy to see how dog owners were misled: The rule states that a dog's last rabies shot must be given within two years of the time of licensing. Conceivably, a dog could be vaccinated every three years, if the owner remembers to renew the license before the two years are up.
Say a shot is given today. To make the shot last three years, the owner must renew the license by Aug. 26, 2006.
If the rule change is adopted, however, licenses will be granted if the owner shows a certificate of immunization in effect at the time of licensing. That would allow owners to wait three years without worrying about fines or visits by a police officer.
Rabies vaccinations are also required for cats, but are difficult to enforce because state law does not require cats to be licensed.
Dr. Robert Gholson, veterinarian for Maine's Bureau of Health, describes the rule change as a "compromise," a response to "an outcry from the dog-owning community that was rightfully concerned."
But Gholson said the change would place a greater onus on owners to track their dogs' vaccinations. Someone could license a dog just days before a three-year-long immunization expires, he said.
"My concern is that if I were a dog owner . . . I may not get my dog re-immunized on schedule because I have a good license," Gholson said.
Veterinarians stress the importance of vaccinating against the fatal viral disease because of its continued presence in Maine. In 2003 there were 72 documented cases, though most were among raccoons and skunks, not dogs, because of Maine's strong vaccination program, Gholson said.
A dog that gets the vaccine needs only a booster shot if it is bitten by a wild animal; unvaccinated dogs are typically euthanized or placed under strict quarantine for six months.
Kris Christine thinks that veterinarians are being overly cautious.
Christine, who led the move for a change after her yellow Labrador, Meadow, developed a malignant tumor on a rabies vaccination site, points to new research from the University of Wisconsin that indicates rabies vaccines are effective for at least seven years.
"We certainly would never want a rabid raccoon or mouse to bite our dog and put our children and us at risk," said Christine, who lives in Alna, "but we also think it's a risk to overvaccinate and it doesn't benefit the animal at all."
Rabies shots can trigger low-grade fever, lethargy and, on the rare occasion, anaphylactic shock.
A three-year schedule, which reduces the chance for side effects, is the standard in nearly all states and is recommended by groups such as the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians.
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association maintains that biannual vaccinations have not been proven to hurt dogs over the long run, though some owners attribute this assertion to the state tracking illnesses in farm animals, not pets.
Christine said the proposed rule change represents a vast improvement, but she still sees a striking omission: There are no medical exemptions for sick dogs.
Staff Writer Josie Huang can be contacted at 791-6364 or at:
jhuang@pressherald.com
- guest
rabies exception laws in maine
by guest » Fri Aug 27, 2004 1:54 pm
Dr. Herman,
Trust me, if the exception is not written into the rabies immunization law for dogs, as it is written into the rabies immunization law for cats, it will be unenforceable! The issue of medical exemption for ill dogs has come up repeatedly (I have raised it several times for obvious reasons) ever since the committee meeting in June. Norma Worley said Let me assure you that I'm very sensitive to the issue of medical exemption for those dogs and cats that simply cannot have a rabies vaccination due to medical reasons (see her e-mail below) and Dr. Gholson said (see e-mail below) I am sure there can be some way to address pets with health issues with a clause, although said health issues would have to be verifiable by a licensed veterinarian, yet they put no medical exemption language in the draft despite their repeated assurances.
All they had to do was take the exception language from the rabies immunization law for cats and substitute the word "dog" for "cat" and put the paragraph into DHS 260. They have an entire panel of "experts," including Assistant Attorney General Paul Gauvreau working on this and they didn't manage to do it, yet two of the members (Norma Worley and Dr. Gholson also see below) are keen on making it a potential CRIMINAL VIOLATION WITH PUNITIVE LEGISLATION not to booster your cat or dog in a timely manner! Do you realize that criminal convictions can result in jail sentences along with fines? I can just imagine myself sitting in jail for refusing to booster Meadow, who has mast cell cancer which I believe their flawed rabies law for dogs was responsible for. According to Dr. Ron Schultz's studies, serologically the rabies vaccine has a minimum of 7 years duration of immunity for dogs!
There is no way that any of my e-mail listers with dogs with cancer (I have a number of them) who live in Oxford, Bridgton, etc... will be able to go their veterinarian in a year or two (if their animals survive that long) and have their veterinarian write them a LEGALLY VALID medical exemption unless it is written into the law. You cannot take Dr. Gholson's verbal assurances that they will allow exceptions, it must be written into DHS 260. What is his excuse for them not putting it in writing as they did for cats?
As a veterinarian, bear in mind that lack of medical exceptions puts every veterinarian at significant risk for liability because the law as drafted will require you to administer rabies shots to sick dogs, which is contrary to the vaccine manufacturer's labeled instructions which state that the vaccine is for "healthy dogs, cats and horses." You and the other veterinarians you have contacted might want to call your attorneys and ask them what your potential liability would be for administering rabies vaccines "off label" to sick animals. Clients whose sick dogs suffer adverse affects from a non-excepted rabies vaccination will sue the veterinarian FIRST rather than going after the State first. A medical exception clause for dogs, like the one in the law for cats, will not only protect sick dogs, but their veterinarians as well!
With cheers & a great deal of caution, Kris
----- Original Message -----
From: Gholson, Robert
To: 'Peter & Kris Christine' ; Worley, Norma J ; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)' ; Hoenig, Donald E ; Fraser, Christine ; Mosher, Peter ; Gholson, Robert ; Gensheimer, Kathleen F. ; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)' ; jaustin@memun.org ; Doak, Shelley ; Haines, Philip W.
Cc: Gauvreau, Paul ; Mills, Dora A.
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:54 AM
Subject: RE: Rabies Booster Criminal Legislation?
To All,
I not only support but will push as much as I can for some type of punitive legislation. I am sure there can be some way to address pets with health issues with a clause, although said health issues would have to be verifiable by a licensed veterinarian.
The real rabies threat is NOT just posed by cats - it is posed by unvaccinated pets and contact with wild mammals. Cats are an issue because there is no current legislation in most places that prevent cat owners frim allowing their cats to outside unleashed, and they are not licensed. Bringing cats into the discussion about canine vaccination is comparing oranges with apples. Cats are an issue, but a separate one. Cats are required to be immunized against rabies. To bring cats into the discussion can only be done if we are going to discuss licensing them and requiring cat owners to keep them inside unless attended. I think this is a valid topic, but until we go there, we must leave them out of it.
Wolf hybrids are another separate issue. They are NOT dogs for the purposes of this discussion. They are not required to be immunized against rabies because the vaccine is NOT approved for use in them; there have actually been cases of wolf hybrids being immunized with the canine rabies vaccine AND still developing rabies. Currently, if you own a wolf hybrid, vaccinated or not, and it bites someone, it will be treated the same as a wild mammal - IT WILL BE EUTHANIZED AND TESTED. That's not unfair, thats based on science, and the fact that most of us put more value on human life than on that particular animal.
I fail to see the unfairness here, and to those who cry foul, I repeat what I said at the meeting - let them hold down a child while he or she is being prophylaxed. If they want to watch a video of real cases of children dying of rabies, I can show them that also. The issue is not making money, or insuring the state has supreme control over pet owners - it is about protecting the our citizens and pets from a disease that is fatal - there is no magic pill for rabies, and if you get it, you will die. I am NOT concerned with trying to cater to every citizen's personal sense of fairness, because their neighbor has a hedgehog that doesn't need rabies vaccination. I am concerned with protecting the health our state's children.
Let's stay focused on the issue at hand, and once that is settled, then we can address other species if needed.
rsg
Robert Gholson, DVM, BCE
State Public Health Veterinarian
Division of Disease Control
Maine DHS-Bureau of Health
Station 11, Key Plaza 8th Floor
Augusta, ME 04333-0011
Phone: 207-287-3361
Fax: 207-287-8186
robert.gholson@maine.gov
----- Original Message -----
From: Worley, Norma J
To: Haines, Philip W. ; Doak, Shelley ; 'jaustin@memun.org' ; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)' ; Gensheimer, Kathleen F. ; Gholson, Robert ; Mosher, Peter ; Fraser, Christine ; Hoenig, Donald E ; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)'
Cc: 'Peter & Kris Christine' ; Mills, Dora A. ; Gauvreau, Paul
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 3:44 PM
Subject: RE: First Draft of amended rule
Phil,
I like the look of this rule! I am considering drafting legislation that
would make it a criminal or civil violation not to have a current rabies
vaccination for dogs and cats. This way if the owner does allow the rabies
vaccination to expire after licensing the dog it would be a separate offense
and the owner could be summons to court.
What's everyone's thought on this?
njw
Norma J. Worley
Director
Animal Welfare Program
28 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0028
(207) 287-3846
norma.j.worley@maine.gov
----- Original Message -----
From: Worley, Norma J
To: 'Peter & Kris Christine' ; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)' ; Hoenig, Donald E ; Fraser, Christine ; Mosher, Peter ; Gholson, Robert ; Gensheimer, Kathleen F. ; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)' ; jaustin@memun.org ; Doak, Shelley ; Haines, Philip W. ; Worley, Norma J
Cc: Gauvreau, Paul ; Mills, Dora A.
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 5:22 PM
Subject: RE: Rabies Booster Criminal Legislation?
Kris,
It's just an idea! That's why I floated it out there for everyone's comment.
Let me assure you that I'm very sensitive to the issue of medical exemption for those dogs and cats that simply cannot have a rabies vaccination due to medical reasons. I would never direct any type of legislation aimed at them.
My concern is for those dog and cat owners that simply ignore the law and chose to put all the animals both domestic and wild at risk.
njw
Norma J. Worley
Director
Animal Welfare Program
28 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0028
(207) 287-3846
norma.j.worley@maine.gov
----- Original Message -----
From: Worley, Norma J
To: 'Peter & Kris Christine' ; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)' ; Hoenig, Donald E ; Fraser, Christine ; Mosher, Peter ; Gholson, Robert ; Gensheimer, Kathleen F. ; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)' ; jaustin@memun.org ; Doak, Shelley ; Haines, Philip W. ; Worley, Norma J
Cc: Gauvreau, Paul ; Mills, Dora A.
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 5:22 PM
Subject: RE: Rabies Booster Criminal Legislation?
Kris,
It's just an idea! That's why I floated it out there for everyone's comment.
Let me assure you that I'm very sensitive to the issue of medical exemption for those dogs and cats that simply cannot have a rabies vaccination due to medical reasons. I would never direct any type of legislation aimed at them.
My concern is for those dog and cat owners that simply ignore the law and chose to put all the animals both domestic and wild at risk.
njw
Norma J. Worley
Director
Animal Welfare Program
28 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0028
(207) 287-3846
norma.j.worley@maine.gov
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Trust me, if the exception is not written into the rabies immunization law for dogs, as it is written into the rabies immunization law for cats, it will be unenforceable! The issue of medical exemption for ill dogs has come up repeatedly (I have raised it several times for obvious reasons) ever since the committee meeting in June. Norma Worley said Let me assure you that I'm very sensitive to the issue of medical exemption for those dogs and cats that simply cannot have a rabies vaccination due to medical reasons (see her e-mail below) and Dr. Gholson said (see e-mail below) I am sure there can be some way to address pets with health issues with a clause, although said health issues would have to be verifiable by a licensed veterinarian, yet they put no medical exemption language in the draft despite their repeated assurances.
All they had to do was take the exception language from the rabies immunization law for cats and substitute the word "dog" for "cat" and put the paragraph into DHS 260. They have an entire panel of "experts," including Assistant Attorney General Paul Gauvreau working on this and they didn't manage to do it, yet two of the members (Norma Worley and Dr. Gholson also see below) are keen on making it a potential CRIMINAL VIOLATION WITH PUNITIVE LEGISLATION not to booster your cat or dog in a timely manner! Do you realize that criminal convictions can result in jail sentences along with fines? I can just imagine myself sitting in jail for refusing to booster Meadow, who has mast cell cancer which I believe their flawed rabies law for dogs was responsible for. According to Dr. Ron Schultz's studies, serologically the rabies vaccine has a minimum of 7 years duration of immunity for dogs!
There is no way that any of my e-mail listers with dogs with cancer (I have a number of them) who live in Oxford, Bridgton, etc... will be able to go their veterinarian in a year or two (if their animals survive that long) and have their veterinarian write them a LEGALLY VALID medical exemption unless it is written into the law. You cannot take Dr. Gholson's verbal assurances that they will allow exceptions, it must be written into DHS 260. What is his excuse for them not putting it in writing as they did for cats?
As a veterinarian, bear in mind that lack of medical exceptions puts every veterinarian at significant risk for liability because the law as drafted will require you to administer rabies shots to sick dogs, which is contrary to the vaccine manufacturer's labeled instructions which state that the vaccine is for "healthy dogs, cats and horses." You and the other veterinarians you have contacted might want to call your attorneys and ask them what your potential liability would be for administering rabies vaccines "off label" to sick animals. Clients whose sick dogs suffer adverse affects from a non-excepted rabies vaccination will sue the veterinarian FIRST rather than going after the State first. A medical exception clause for dogs, like the one in the law for cats, will not only protect sick dogs, but their veterinarians as well!
With cheers & a great deal of caution, Kris
----- Original Message -----
From: Gholson, Robert
To: 'Peter & Kris Christine' ; Worley, Norma J ; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)' ; Hoenig, Donald E ; Fraser, Christine ; Mosher, Peter ; Gholson, Robert ; Gensheimer, Kathleen F. ; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)' ; jaustin@memun.org ; Doak, Shelley ; Haines, Philip W.
Cc: Gauvreau, Paul ; Mills, Dora A.
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:54 AM
Subject: RE: Rabies Booster Criminal Legislation?
To All,
I not only support but will push as much as I can for some type of punitive legislation. I am sure there can be some way to address pets with health issues with a clause, although said health issues would have to be verifiable by a licensed veterinarian.
The real rabies threat is NOT just posed by cats - it is posed by unvaccinated pets and contact with wild mammals. Cats are an issue because there is no current legislation in most places that prevent cat owners frim allowing their cats to outside unleashed, and they are not licensed. Bringing cats into the discussion about canine vaccination is comparing oranges with apples. Cats are an issue, but a separate one. Cats are required to be immunized against rabies. To bring cats into the discussion can only be done if we are going to discuss licensing them and requiring cat owners to keep them inside unless attended. I think this is a valid topic, but until we go there, we must leave them out of it.
Wolf hybrids are another separate issue. They are NOT dogs for the purposes of this discussion. They are not required to be immunized against rabies because the vaccine is NOT approved for use in them; there have actually been cases of wolf hybrids being immunized with the canine rabies vaccine AND still developing rabies. Currently, if you own a wolf hybrid, vaccinated or not, and it bites someone, it will be treated the same as a wild mammal - IT WILL BE EUTHANIZED AND TESTED. That's not unfair, thats based on science, and the fact that most of us put more value on human life than on that particular animal.
I fail to see the unfairness here, and to those who cry foul, I repeat what I said at the meeting - let them hold down a child while he or she is being prophylaxed. If they want to watch a video of real cases of children dying of rabies, I can show them that also. The issue is not making money, or insuring the state has supreme control over pet owners - it is about protecting the our citizens and pets from a disease that is fatal - there is no magic pill for rabies, and if you get it, you will die. I am NOT concerned with trying to cater to every citizen's personal sense of fairness, because their neighbor has a hedgehog that doesn't need rabies vaccination. I am concerned with protecting the health our state's children.
Let's stay focused on the issue at hand, and once that is settled, then we can address other species if needed.
rsg
Robert Gholson, DVM, BCE
State Public Health Veterinarian
Division of Disease Control
Maine DHS-Bureau of Health
Station 11, Key Plaza 8th Floor
Augusta, ME 04333-0011
Phone: 207-287-3361
Fax: 207-287-8186
robert.gholson@maine.gov
----- Original Message -----
From: Worley, Norma J
To: Haines, Philip W. ; Doak, Shelley ; 'jaustin@memun.org' ; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)' ; Gensheimer, Kathleen F. ; Gholson, Robert ; Mosher, Peter ; Fraser, Christine ; Hoenig, Donald E ; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)'
Cc: 'Peter & Kris Christine' ; Mills, Dora A. ; Gauvreau, Paul
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 3:44 PM
Subject: RE: First Draft of amended rule
Phil,
I like the look of this rule! I am considering drafting legislation that
would make it a criminal or civil violation not to have a current rabies
vaccination for dogs and cats. This way if the owner does allow the rabies
vaccination to expire after licensing the dog it would be a separate offense
and the owner could be summons to court.
What's everyone's thought on this?
njw
Norma J. Worley
Director
Animal Welfare Program
28 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0028
(207) 287-3846
norma.j.worley@maine.gov
----- Original Message -----
From: Worley, Norma J
To: 'Peter & Kris Christine' ; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)' ; Hoenig, Donald E ; Fraser, Christine ; Mosher, Peter ; Gholson, Robert ; Gensheimer, Kathleen F. ; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)' ; jaustin@memun.org ; Doak, Shelley ; Haines, Philip W. ; Worley, Norma J
Cc: Gauvreau, Paul ; Mills, Dora A.
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 5:22 PM
Subject: RE: Rabies Booster Criminal Legislation?
Kris,
It's just an idea! That's why I floated it out there for everyone's comment.
Let me assure you that I'm very sensitive to the issue of medical exemption for those dogs and cats that simply cannot have a rabies vaccination due to medical reasons. I would never direct any type of legislation aimed at them.
My concern is for those dog and cat owners that simply ignore the law and chose to put all the animals both domestic and wild at risk.
njw
Norma J. Worley
Director
Animal Welfare Program
28 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0028
(207) 287-3846
norma.j.worley@maine.gov
----- Original Message -----
From: Worley, Norma J
To: 'Peter & Kris Christine' ; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)' ; Hoenig, Donald E ; Fraser, Christine ; Mosher, Peter ; Gholson, Robert ; Gensheimer, Kathleen F. ; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)' ; jaustin@memun.org ; Doak, Shelley ; Haines, Philip W. ; Worley, Norma J
Cc: Gauvreau, Paul ; Mills, Dora A.
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 5:22 PM
Subject: RE: Rabies Booster Criminal Legislation?
Kris,
It's just an idea! That's why I floated it out there for everyone's comment.
Let me assure you that I'm very sensitive to the issue of medical exemption for those dogs and cats that simply cannot have a rabies vaccination due to medical reasons. I would never direct any type of legislation aimed at them.
My concern is for those dog and cat owners that simply ignore the law and chose to put all the animals both domestic and wild at risk.
njw
Norma J. Worley
Director
Animal Welfare Program
28 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0028
(207) 287-3846
norma.j.worley@maine.gov
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- guest
many dog owners scheduled shots biannually
by guest » Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:16 am
http://www.sunjournal.com/opinion/colum ... 829107.php
Dogging vaccine protocol
Sunday, August 29,2004
Extensive media coverage. Weekly newspapers fielding letters to the editor from Great Britain and Australia. Professors, politicians and veterinarians, all boarding the bandwagon of an outspoken mom and canine aficionado from Lincoln County.
What's left? Real change.
That's where you come in.
On Tuesday afternoon, the Department of Health and Human Services invites discussion about a proposed amendment to rabies immunization requirements for dog licensure.
The hearing begins at 1:30 p.m. in Room 220 of the Cross Building in Augusta on the State House campus. Prepared statements are encouraged.
Guess who'll be first?
"I'm still stunned at the extent of the problem," said Kris Christine of Alna.
Christine and her husband, Peter, became canine crusaders when Meadow, their 6 1/2-year-old yellow Labrador, developed a tumor near the site of his rabies booster shot in April.
After a day of research, Kris Christine was convinced of a link between the rabies vaccine and her dog's malignancy. She was further incensed when she discovered that 46 other states had laws mandating a booster shot every three years.
Maine's law is worded in such confusing fashion that many dog owners scheduled shots biannually. The new rule, if enacted, would give dog owners, veterinarians and town offices clarity and bring Maine in line with federally required label statements on duration of immunity.
Meadow remains the poster pet.
"I'm so frantic over my guy," she said. "Now he has two more tumors. It may be in his lymph glands."
Officials have shown a degree of sympathy. This week, Dr. Robert Gholson, veterinarian for the Maine Bureau of Health, described Christine and other proactive pet owners as "rightfully concerned."
Gholson's concern, however, is keeping the discussion on task. Christine, for example, points out that the new rule includes no medical exemption for sick dogs.
The state veterinarian also said owners could become lax or manipulate the new law by getting their dog licensed just before the three-year shot runs out.
But Christine cites information from her own contacts within the veterinary industry, particularly Dr. W. Jean Dodds of Santa Monica, Calif., and researchers at the University of Wisconsin, who say the vaccines are effective for at least five to seven years.
"I'm just trying to reduce the protocol," she said. "I'm not anti-vaccine."
Dodds sent a two-page letter with references to Sen. Chris Hall (D-Bristol), who represents Christine's region. Like an itinerant preacher handing out gospel tracts, Christine has lost track of how many copies she has distributed.
"I ask people at the bank, 'Do you have a dog or a cat?' I handed out 30 of them in Portland the other day," Christine said. "I am literally out on the street handing out this information."
And at the post office ... and the diner ... and ...
"My children are 14 and 11, so they're easily embarrassed," she said. "If they know my targets, they try to warn them. They yell out the window, 'Hurry, Mom's coming. Run for your life!' They know I'll talk to anyone."
Christine suspects that she's a target, as well.
Her husband jokes that no veterinarian in the state will accept their business. She says the Bureau of Health never notified her of Tuesday's meeting, that the word came from an acquaintance in the Secretary of State's office.
One way or another, she'll have the floor. You're entitled, too.
Can't make it on short notice? The state is accepting written statements about the proposed rule change until Sept. 10. Address your concerns to Dr. Philip Haines, Bureau of Health, DHHS, Key Plaza 8th Floor, #11 SHS, Augusta, Maine 04333-0011.
Kalle Oakes is staff columnist. He may be reached by e-mail at koakes@sunjournal.com .
Dogging vaccine protocol
Sunday, August 29,2004
Extensive media coverage. Weekly newspapers fielding letters to the editor from Great Britain and Australia. Professors, politicians and veterinarians, all boarding the bandwagon of an outspoken mom and canine aficionado from Lincoln County.
What's left? Real change.
That's where you come in.
On Tuesday afternoon, the Department of Health and Human Services invites discussion about a proposed amendment to rabies immunization requirements for dog licensure.
The hearing begins at 1:30 p.m. in Room 220 of the Cross Building in Augusta on the State House campus. Prepared statements are encouraged.
Guess who'll be first?
"I'm still stunned at the extent of the problem," said Kris Christine of Alna.
Christine and her husband, Peter, became canine crusaders when Meadow, their 6 1/2-year-old yellow Labrador, developed a tumor near the site of his rabies booster shot in April.
After a day of research, Kris Christine was convinced of a link between the rabies vaccine and her dog's malignancy. She was further incensed when she discovered that 46 other states had laws mandating a booster shot every three years.
Maine's law is worded in such confusing fashion that many dog owners scheduled shots biannually. The new rule, if enacted, would give dog owners, veterinarians and town offices clarity and bring Maine in line with federally required label statements on duration of immunity.
Meadow remains the poster pet.
"I'm so frantic over my guy," she said. "Now he has two more tumors. It may be in his lymph glands."
Officials have shown a degree of sympathy. This week, Dr. Robert Gholson, veterinarian for the Maine Bureau of Health, described Christine and other proactive pet owners as "rightfully concerned."
Gholson's concern, however, is keeping the discussion on task. Christine, for example, points out that the new rule includes no medical exemption for sick dogs.
The state veterinarian also said owners could become lax or manipulate the new law by getting their dog licensed just before the three-year shot runs out.
But Christine cites information from her own contacts within the veterinary industry, particularly Dr. W. Jean Dodds of Santa Monica, Calif., and researchers at the University of Wisconsin, who say the vaccines are effective for at least five to seven years.
"I'm just trying to reduce the protocol," she said. "I'm not anti-vaccine."
Dodds sent a two-page letter with references to Sen. Chris Hall (D-Bristol), who represents Christine's region. Like an itinerant preacher handing out gospel tracts, Christine has lost track of how many copies she has distributed.
"I ask people at the bank, 'Do you have a dog or a cat?' I handed out 30 of them in Portland the other day," Christine said. "I am literally out on the street handing out this information."
And at the post office ... and the diner ... and ...
"My children are 14 and 11, so they're easily embarrassed," she said. "If they know my targets, they try to warn them. They yell out the window, 'Hurry, Mom's coming. Run for your life!' They know I'll talk to anyone."
Christine suspects that she's a target, as well.
Her husband jokes that no veterinarian in the state will accept their business. She says the Bureau of Health never notified her of Tuesday's meeting, that the word came from an acquaintance in the Secretary of State's office.
One way or another, she'll have the floor. You're entitled, too.
Can't make it on short notice? The state is accepting written statements about the proposed rule change until Sept. 10. Address your concerns to Dr. Philip Haines, Bureau of Health, DHHS, Key Plaza 8th Floor, #11 SHS, Augusta, Maine 04333-0011.
Kalle Oakes is staff columnist. He may be reached by e-mail at koakes@sunjournal.com .
- guest
MAINE RABIES LAW Barking up the Right Tree
by GUEST » Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:01 am
http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews ... ?ID=431239
Last updated: Saturday, August 28, 2004
Barking up the Right Tree
A group charged with resolving a conflict in state rules that caused dogs to be vaccinated against rabies more often than necessary has come up with a simple fix to a decades-old problem. The group's solution, to require that dog owners show proof that their pet is currently vaccinated when they seek to license it at the town office, will be the subject of a public hearing in Augusta Tuesday. This simple and straightforward solution should be supported.
After concerns were raised by an owner whose dog developed a tumor
at the site of its rabies shots, state officials decided to reconsider two different state rules that worked somewhat at cross-purposes. One rule, administered by the Department of Human Service's Bureau of Health and mirroring national standards, requires that dogs be given a rabies vaccination that lasts for three years (except for the initial dose, which lasts for one year). Another rule, this one under
the jurisdiction of the Department
of Agriculture, requires that dogs be licensed by Jan. 1 of each year.
In order to get a license, a dog owner must present a certificate showing that a rabies shot was given within 730 days (or 360 for the initial one). This meant that most dogs are getting rabies shots every two years with a vaccine that the manufacturer and veterinarians recommend giving every three years.
Some dogs have allergic reactions to shots and some immune-mediated diseases can be triggered by vaccinations. Studies are continuing on the occurrence of tumors at immunization sites in some dog breeds.
Fear of over-vaccination, however, should not prompt people to put off immunizing their dogs against rabies, which has been found among animals in Maine and is fatal. The state's public health veterinarian is worried that some dog owners would use the new rule to delay vaccinations. Under the proposed rule someone could license a dog although its vaccination certificate expires the next day.
Such fears are not borne out by the history of Maine's dog licensing program. Although dog licenses were initiated in 1981 to encourage people to vaccinate their pets, the rabies immunization rate far surpasses compliance with the licensing requirement. Nationally, well over 90 percent of dogs are vaccinated against rabies, but only about 40 percent are licensed. Maine numbers are thought to be similar.
Protecting canine health while avoiding unnecessary shots, that could have negative consequences,
is a good compromise.
Last updated: Saturday, August 28, 2004
Barking up the Right Tree
A group charged with resolving a conflict in state rules that caused dogs to be vaccinated against rabies more often than necessary has come up with a simple fix to a decades-old problem. The group's solution, to require that dog owners show proof that their pet is currently vaccinated when they seek to license it at the town office, will be the subject of a public hearing in Augusta Tuesday. This simple and straightforward solution should be supported.
After concerns were raised by an owner whose dog developed a tumor
at the site of its rabies shots, state officials decided to reconsider two different state rules that worked somewhat at cross-purposes. One rule, administered by the Department of Human Service's Bureau of Health and mirroring national standards, requires that dogs be given a rabies vaccination that lasts for three years (except for the initial dose, which lasts for one year). Another rule, this one under
the jurisdiction of the Department
of Agriculture, requires that dogs be licensed by Jan. 1 of each year.
In order to get a license, a dog owner must present a certificate showing that a rabies shot was given within 730 days (or 360 for the initial one). This meant that most dogs are getting rabies shots every two years with a vaccine that the manufacturer and veterinarians recommend giving every three years.
Some dogs have allergic reactions to shots and some immune-mediated diseases can be triggered by vaccinations. Studies are continuing on the occurrence of tumors at immunization sites in some dog breeds.
Fear of over-vaccination, however, should not prompt people to put off immunizing their dogs against rabies, which has been found among animals in Maine and is fatal. The state's public health veterinarian is worried that some dog owners would use the new rule to delay vaccinations. Under the proposed rule someone could license a dog although its vaccination certificate expires the next day.
Such fears are not borne out by the history of Maine's dog licensing program. Although dog licenses were initiated in 1981 to encourage people to vaccinate their pets, the rabies immunization rate far surpasses compliance with the licensing requirement. Nationally, well over 90 percent of dogs are vaccinated against rabies, but only about 40 percent are licensed. Maine numbers are thought to be similar.
Protecting canine health while avoiding unnecessary shots, that could have negative consequences,
is a good compromise.
- GUEST
Why wasn't there one single whistle-blowing veterinarian
by malernee » Sat Sep 25, 2004 5:31 pm
Rabies-shot law may change
Portland Press Herald Writer
A summer's worth of complaints from dog owners who worry about overvaccinating their pets has grabbed the state's attention.
Deluged by e-mails about dogs apparently falling ill from rabies shots, state officials have drafted a change to a confusing, decades-old regulation. They will take public feedback Tuesday in Augusta.
Many people have had the misimpression that a dog must be inoculated every two years to qualify for an annual license from a town or city, even though vaccine manufacturers and national canine experts recommend three-year intervals.
State officials say it's easy to see how dog owners were misled: The rule states that a dog's last rabies shot must be given within two years of the time of licensing. Conceivably, a dog could be vaccinated every three years, if the owner remembers to renew the license before the two years are up.
Say a shot is given today. To make the shot last three years, the owner must renew the license by Aug. 26, 2006.
If the rule change is adopted, however, licenses will be granted if the owner shows a certificate of immunization in effect at the time of licensing. That would allow owners to wait three years without worrying about fines or visits by a police officer.
Rabies vaccinations are also required for cats, but are difficult to enforce because state law does not require cats to be licensed.
Dr. Robert Gholson, veterinarian for Maine's Bureau of Health, describes the rule change as a "compromise," a response to "an outcry from the dog-owning community that was rightfully concerned."
But Gholson said the change would place a greater onus on owners to track their dogs' vaccinations. Someone could license a dog just days before a three-year-long immunization expires, he said.
"My concern is that if I were a dog owner . . . I may not get my dog re-immunized on schedule because I have a good license," Gholson said.
Veterinarians stress the importance of vaccinating against the fatal viral disease because of its continued presence in Maine. In 2003 there were 72 documented cases, though most were among raccoons and skunks, not dogs, because of Maine's strong vaccination program, Gholson said.
A dog that gets the vaccine needs only a booster shot if it is bitten by a wild animal; unvaccinated dogs are typically euthanized or placed under strict quarantine for six months.
Kris Christine thinks that veterinarians are being overly cautious.
Christine, who led the move for a change after her yellow Labrador, Meadow, developed a malignant tumor on a rabies vaccination site, points to new research from the University of Wisconsin that indicates rabies vaccines are effective for at least seven years.
"We certainly would never want a rabid raccoon or mouse to bite our dog and put our children and us at risk," said Christine, who lives in Alna, "but we also think it's a risk to overvaccinate and it doesn't benefit the animal at all."
Rabies shots can trigger low-grade fever, lethargy and, on the rare occasion, anaphylactic shock.
A three-year schedule, which reduces the chance for side effects, is the standard in nearly all states and is recommended by groups such as the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians.
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association maintains that biannual vaccinations have not been proven to hurt dogs over the long run, though some owners attribute this assertion to the state tracking illnesses in farm animals, not pets.
Christine said the proposed rule change represents a vast improvement, but she still sees a striking omission: There are no medical exemptions for sick dogs.
===
Last updated: Thursday, August 12, 2004
Activist pushes for rabies-shot rule change
When her 7-year-old Labrador retriever was diagnosed with a cancerous tumor at the injection site of its rabies booster, Kris Christine of Alna began investigating whether there was a link between rabies shots and tumors. What she discovered has turned Maine's pet vaccination standard upside down and has prompted the state Department of Health and Human Services to revamp its 17-year-old vaccination protocol. The department is now advocating dogs receive the rabies booster every three years, instead of the current two-year protocol.
Christine's campaign for vaccination reform began when her dog, Meadow, had to undergo four surgeries for tumors she said are related to rabies vaccines. She discovered that contrary to the recommendations of U.S. veterinary colleges, despite the recommendations of the National Veterinary Association, and in direct disregard of manufacturers' recommendations, Maine veterinarians were routinely giving rabies vaccination boosters every two years rather than every three years.
At least 46 other states have a three-year vaccination protocol. Yet in Maine, boosters are required every two years in order to license a dog, forcing veterinarians to overvaccinate in order to meet state license regulations.
Christine said Wednesday that the issue is not just one of pet health and compassion but one of consumer protection.
"The Attorney General's Office should be investigating this and they have turned a blind eye. Even the state Board of Veterinary Medicine, which oversees Maine's vets and is trusted to protect the public's interest, is not doing their job," she said.
Since her reform campaign began, however, Maine vets have joined the groundswell of support for change, calling the current state requirement "outdated and unethical."
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association has recently thrown its full support behind changing to a three-year vaccination protocol, said William Bell, executive director. Bell added, however, that Christine's contention that a two-year regimen is overvaccination is incorrect and alarmist.
"The first rule of veterinary medicine is do no harm," he said. "There has never, ever been any research suggesting that vaccinations cause cancerous tumors."
Yearly and biyearly vaccinations are often called a "cash cow" for vets, said Christine, and until she came along and began questioning the process, "no one has challenged their practices. When they send out annual reminders to pet owners, that is deceit in connection with their practice. We had always trusted our veterinarians. This betrayal came as a stunning blow."
The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians and the American Veterinary Medical Association stated in a 2003 Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control that "there are no laboratory or epidemiologic data to support the annual or biennial administration of 3-year vaccines following the initial series."
In the 2001 Principles of Vaccination, the AVMA further states that "vaccination is a potent medical procedure associated with both benefits and risks. Adverse events, including some that are potentially severe, can be unintended consequences of vaccination."
In addition, rabies vaccine manufacturers specify on the product label or package insert that "vaccines used in state and local rabies-control programs should have a three-year duration of immunity."
Particularly distressing to Christine is the way the issue appears to have been ignored by the veterinary industry until recently.
"Why wasn't there one single whistle-blowing veterinarian in more than 17 years to bring the conflicting canine rabies protocol to the state's attention?" she asked. "They all knew it was contrary to the vaccine manufacturer's specifications, as well as the recommendations of all the national veterinary medical associations and all 27 veterinary colleges, yet none of them challenged it despite the fact that they knew they were overvaccinating our dogs for rabies."
Bell said the realization that the vaccine is good for three years "is a fairly recent development, within the past two or three years." During that time, he said state veterinarians have suggested to the Legislature's Agriculture Committee that the rule be changed.
"Every time, the process has been driven by what municipal clerks want, not what is good for pets," said Bell.
Bell said the real danger and a higher priority should be getting unvaccinated animals protected with the vaccine.
Maine's Deputy Director of the Bureau of Health, Dr. Philip W. Haines, has sent out two letters to all Maine veterinarians recommending they adopt the three-year protocol.
The public hearing on Maine's proposed rule change will be held in Augusta from 1:30 to 3 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 31, at the Cross State Office Building, Room 220. Written comments will be accepted until Sept. 10. Send to Key Plaza, 8th Floor, 11 State House Station, Augusta 04333.
Portland Press Herald Writer
A summer's worth of complaints from dog owners who worry about overvaccinating their pets has grabbed the state's attention.
Deluged by e-mails about dogs apparently falling ill from rabies shots, state officials have drafted a change to a confusing, decades-old regulation. They will take public feedback Tuesday in Augusta.
Many people have had the misimpression that a dog must be inoculated every two years to qualify for an annual license from a town or city, even though vaccine manufacturers and national canine experts recommend three-year intervals.
State officials say it's easy to see how dog owners were misled: The rule states that a dog's last rabies shot must be given within two years of the time of licensing. Conceivably, a dog could be vaccinated every three years, if the owner remembers to renew the license before the two years are up.
Say a shot is given today. To make the shot last three years, the owner must renew the license by Aug. 26, 2006.
If the rule change is adopted, however, licenses will be granted if the owner shows a certificate of immunization in effect at the time of licensing. That would allow owners to wait three years without worrying about fines or visits by a police officer.
Rabies vaccinations are also required for cats, but are difficult to enforce because state law does not require cats to be licensed.
Dr. Robert Gholson, veterinarian for Maine's Bureau of Health, describes the rule change as a "compromise," a response to "an outcry from the dog-owning community that was rightfully concerned."
But Gholson said the change would place a greater onus on owners to track their dogs' vaccinations. Someone could license a dog just days before a three-year-long immunization expires, he said.
"My concern is that if I were a dog owner . . . I may not get my dog re-immunized on schedule because I have a good license," Gholson said.
Veterinarians stress the importance of vaccinating against the fatal viral disease because of its continued presence in Maine. In 2003 there were 72 documented cases, though most were among raccoons and skunks, not dogs, because of Maine's strong vaccination program, Gholson said.
A dog that gets the vaccine needs only a booster shot if it is bitten by a wild animal; unvaccinated dogs are typically euthanized or placed under strict quarantine for six months.
Kris Christine thinks that veterinarians are being overly cautious.
Christine, who led the move for a change after her yellow Labrador, Meadow, developed a malignant tumor on a rabies vaccination site, points to new research from the University of Wisconsin that indicates rabies vaccines are effective for at least seven years.
"We certainly would never want a rabid raccoon or mouse to bite our dog and put our children and us at risk," said Christine, who lives in Alna, "but we also think it's a risk to overvaccinate and it doesn't benefit the animal at all."
Rabies shots can trigger low-grade fever, lethargy and, on the rare occasion, anaphylactic shock.
A three-year schedule, which reduces the chance for side effects, is the standard in nearly all states and is recommended by groups such as the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians.
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association maintains that biannual vaccinations have not been proven to hurt dogs over the long run, though some owners attribute this assertion to the state tracking illnesses in farm animals, not pets.
Christine said the proposed rule change represents a vast improvement, but she still sees a striking omission: There are no medical exemptions for sick dogs.
===
Last updated: Thursday, August 12, 2004
Activist pushes for rabies-shot rule change
When her 7-year-old Labrador retriever was diagnosed with a cancerous tumor at the injection site of its rabies booster, Kris Christine of Alna began investigating whether there was a link between rabies shots and tumors. What she discovered has turned Maine's pet vaccination standard upside down and has prompted the state Department of Health and Human Services to revamp its 17-year-old vaccination protocol. The department is now advocating dogs receive the rabies booster every three years, instead of the current two-year protocol.
Christine's campaign for vaccination reform began when her dog, Meadow, had to undergo four surgeries for tumors she said are related to rabies vaccines. She discovered that contrary to the recommendations of U.S. veterinary colleges, despite the recommendations of the National Veterinary Association, and in direct disregard of manufacturers' recommendations, Maine veterinarians were routinely giving rabies vaccination boosters every two years rather than every three years.
At least 46 other states have a three-year vaccination protocol. Yet in Maine, boosters are required every two years in order to license a dog, forcing veterinarians to overvaccinate in order to meet state license regulations.
Christine said Wednesday that the issue is not just one of pet health and compassion but one of consumer protection.
"The Attorney General's Office should be investigating this and they have turned a blind eye. Even the state Board of Veterinary Medicine, which oversees Maine's vets and is trusted to protect the public's interest, is not doing their job," she said.
Since her reform campaign began, however, Maine vets have joined the groundswell of support for change, calling the current state requirement "outdated and unethical."
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association has recently thrown its full support behind changing to a three-year vaccination protocol, said William Bell, executive director. Bell added, however, that Christine's contention that a two-year regimen is overvaccination is incorrect and alarmist.
"The first rule of veterinary medicine is do no harm," he said. "There has never, ever been any research suggesting that vaccinations cause cancerous tumors."
Yearly and biyearly vaccinations are often called a "cash cow" for vets, said Christine, and until she came along and began questioning the process, "no one has challenged their practices. When they send out annual reminders to pet owners, that is deceit in connection with their practice. We had always trusted our veterinarians. This betrayal came as a stunning blow."
The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians and the American Veterinary Medical Association stated in a 2003 Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control that "there are no laboratory or epidemiologic data to support the annual or biennial administration of 3-year vaccines following the initial series."
In the 2001 Principles of Vaccination, the AVMA further states that "vaccination is a potent medical procedure associated with both benefits and risks. Adverse events, including some that are potentially severe, can be unintended consequences of vaccination."
In addition, rabies vaccine manufacturers specify on the product label or package insert that "vaccines used in state and local rabies-control programs should have a three-year duration of immunity."
Particularly distressing to Christine is the way the issue appears to have been ignored by the veterinary industry until recently.
"Why wasn't there one single whistle-blowing veterinarian in more than 17 years to bring the conflicting canine rabies protocol to the state's attention?" she asked. "They all knew it was contrary to the vaccine manufacturer's specifications, as well as the recommendations of all the national veterinary medical associations and all 27 veterinary colleges, yet none of them challenged it despite the fact that they knew they were overvaccinating our dogs for rabies."
Bell said the realization that the vaccine is good for three years "is a fairly recent development, within the past two or three years." During that time, he said state veterinarians have suggested to the Legislature's Agriculture Committee that the rule be changed.
"Every time, the process has been driven by what municipal clerks want, not what is good for pets," said Bell.
Bell said the real danger and a higher priority should be getting unvaccinated animals protected with the vaccine.
Maine's Deputy Director of the Bureau of Health, Dr. Philip W. Haines, has sent out two letters to all Maine veterinarians recommending they adopt the three-year protocol.
The public hearing on Maine's proposed rule change will be held in Augusta from 1:30 to 3 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 31, at the Cross State Office Building, Room 220. Written comments will be accepted until Sept. 10. Send to Key Plaza, 8th Floor, 11 State House Station, Augusta 04333.
- malernee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:56 pm
aaha newstat maine vaccination disclosure law newsletter
by malernee » Fri Oct 01, 2004 6:32 pm
Greetings!
Below is a copy of an article in NEWStat, the Newsletter of the American Animal Hospital Association, September 22, 2004 Vol. 2, Issue 19 on Senator Hall's proposed vaccine disclosure legislation and was written by Heather Grimshaw. ***
New Bill Would Require Veterinarians to Disclose Vaccination Pros and Cons
A controversy over the frequency of administering vaccines has been brewing across the country and came to a head this month in Maine, where one incident of alleged vaccine-related cancer sparked a statewide media frenzy that prompted a change in the state's rabies vaccine requirement and licensing rule. It also may result in a new state law that would require veterinarians to disclose vaccine risks.
"The latest fallout [from this issue] is already national in terms of [the demand for] informed consent about vaccines, adverse reactions and protocols," said Robert Gholson, DVM, state public health veterinarian. "This thing was like a forest fire out of control."
The issue hit the local newspapers in the spring when a pet owner challenged the validity of the state's vaccine requirement after her dog developed a cancerous tumor where the Labrador retriever received a rabies booster, according to local media. The owner described vaccines as "cash cows" for veterinarians and was quoted as saying ".in direct disregard of manufacturers' recommendations, Maine veterinarians were routinely giving rabies vaccination boosters every two years rather than every three years."
After the story ran in newspapers, Gholson fielded countless calls from pet owners, veterinarians and concerned citizens who were critical of veterinarians and the state rule. The licensing rule, which had been in place since 1981, required an immunization within the last two years to ensure that vaccines would be active through the next year, Gholson said. The rule has been changed to read that immunization has to be valid the day that an owner presents for licensing, Gholson said. The change was announced after a public hearing on Aug. 31 and is attributed to the rabies vaccination case, and the original rule's wording, which allowed people to think that the state required two-year vaccinations, Gholson said. "The public does not understand that even if an immunization is valid today, maybe a week later it won't be valid," he cautioned.
The Maine legislature also may consider passing a law that would require veterinarians to disclose vaccine risk information to clients, similar to prescription consent forms and some immunizations in human health, Gholson said.
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association supports increased client education, but it would prefer to handle such communication on its own, said Bill Bryant, DVM, president of the Maine VMA. Before the bill is introduced, the association is sending members AAHA vaccine brochures and developing a consent form for owners in an attempt to sidestep legislation.
"Most veterinarians are not real keen on having the legislature get into the management of veterinary medicine," Bryant said. "We are certainly in favor of greater disclosure, and by acting proactively, our goal is to eliminate the need for any legislation."
Sen. Chris Hall (D-Maine) said he plans to introduce a bill in November that would require veterinarians to educate clients about the risks of vaccinating versus not vaccinating pets. He has been approached by colleagues who want to cosponsor the bill and expects it to be heard in February or March 2005. "I have had more email, calls and letters on animal vaccinations than any other subject except human healthcare," Hall said. "Like most jurisdictions, Maine does not collect data on pet mortality or morbidity, so it is hard to form impartial judgments on the possible side effects of vaccination or over-vaccination, and of course, the veterinary community is divided on these issues. My concern, in the light of great popular interest, is not to require arbitrary rules governing vaccination, but to better inform the public."
Hall said he would consider dropping the legislation if veterinarians educated their clients about the risks. "But I would want to be certain that all veterinarians are using a uniform, factually correct disclosure," he noted.
Below is a copy of an article in NEWStat, the Newsletter of the American Animal Hospital Association, September 22, 2004 Vol. 2, Issue 19 on Senator Hall's proposed vaccine disclosure legislation and was written by Heather Grimshaw. ***
New Bill Would Require Veterinarians to Disclose Vaccination Pros and Cons
A controversy over the frequency of administering vaccines has been brewing across the country and came to a head this month in Maine, where one incident of alleged vaccine-related cancer sparked a statewide media frenzy that prompted a change in the state's rabies vaccine requirement and licensing rule. It also may result in a new state law that would require veterinarians to disclose vaccine risks.
"The latest fallout [from this issue] is already national in terms of [the demand for] informed consent about vaccines, adverse reactions and protocols," said Robert Gholson, DVM, state public health veterinarian. "This thing was like a forest fire out of control."
The issue hit the local newspapers in the spring when a pet owner challenged the validity of the state's vaccine requirement after her dog developed a cancerous tumor where the Labrador retriever received a rabies booster, according to local media. The owner described vaccines as "cash cows" for veterinarians and was quoted as saying ".in direct disregard of manufacturers' recommendations, Maine veterinarians were routinely giving rabies vaccination boosters every two years rather than every three years."
After the story ran in newspapers, Gholson fielded countless calls from pet owners, veterinarians and concerned citizens who were critical of veterinarians and the state rule. The licensing rule, which had been in place since 1981, required an immunization within the last two years to ensure that vaccines would be active through the next year, Gholson said. The rule has been changed to read that immunization has to be valid the day that an owner presents for licensing, Gholson said. The change was announced after a public hearing on Aug. 31 and is attributed to the rabies vaccination case, and the original rule's wording, which allowed people to think that the state required two-year vaccinations, Gholson said. "The public does not understand that even if an immunization is valid today, maybe a week later it won't be valid," he cautioned.
The Maine legislature also may consider passing a law that would require veterinarians to disclose vaccine risk information to clients, similar to prescription consent forms and some immunizations in human health, Gholson said.
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association supports increased client education, but it would prefer to handle such communication on its own, said Bill Bryant, DVM, president of the Maine VMA. Before the bill is introduced, the association is sending members AAHA vaccine brochures and developing a consent form for owners in an attempt to sidestep legislation.
"Most veterinarians are not real keen on having the legislature get into the management of veterinary medicine," Bryant said. "We are certainly in favor of greater disclosure, and by acting proactively, our goal is to eliminate the need for any legislation."
Sen. Chris Hall (D-Maine) said he plans to introduce a bill in November that would require veterinarians to educate clients about the risks of vaccinating versus not vaccinating pets. He has been approached by colleagues who want to cosponsor the bill and expects it to be heard in February or March 2005. "I have had more email, calls and letters on animal vaccinations than any other subject except human healthcare," Hall said. "Like most jurisdictions, Maine does not collect data on pet mortality or morbidity, so it is hard to form impartial judgments on the possible side effects of vaccination or over-vaccination, and of course, the veterinary community is divided on these issues. My concern, in the light of great popular interest, is not to require arbitrary rules governing vaccination, but to better inform the public."
Hall said he would consider dropping the legislation if veterinarians educated their clients about the risks. "But I would want to be certain that all veterinarians are using a uniform, factually correct disclosure," he noted.
- malernee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:56 pm
Dr. Robert Rogers, appears in today's Lincoln County News
by malernee » Sat Oct 02, 2004 11:22 am
The following letter from Texas veterinarian,
Dr. Robert Rogers, appears in today's Lincoln County News in response to
the September 16, 2004 letter from the veterinarians of Coastal
Veterinary Care in Wiscasset.
To the Editor:
In regards to the letter to the editor in
the September 16, 2004 issue of The Lincoln County News. by the
Veterinarians of Coastal Veterinary Care I would like to reply.
Coastal Veterinary Care was previously
vaccinating dogs every year with the distemper combo vaccine. The
Coastal Vet Care Drs state, " We have been discussing vaccine protocols
and the best way to protect your pets for years. For the past five years
or so, we have been carefully considering all the available studies and
reports. Due to a lack of convincing evidence, we have been waiting to
make any changes in our current well-proven protocol."
Convincing evidence has been around a long time. The issue of
over-vaccination was first addressed in the Journal of the AVMA in
August 15, 1995 where Dr Ron Schultz states" The client is paying for
something with no effect, except the patient is exposed to the risk of
an adverse reaction."
" At this time, there is no compelling evidence that
the available vaccines protect your pets for longer than three years."
This is not true. Dr Schultz published studies showing duration of
immunity to distemper and parvovirus of at least 7 years by challenge in
1998. More importantly, studies showing repeat administration of vaccine
have no effect were also published in 1998.
" There is absolutely no evidence that vaccination causes malignant
tumors in dogs."
This is not true. Vaccine associated sarcomas have been documented in
dogs. Fibrosarcomas at presumed sites of injection in dogs:
characteristics and comparison with non-vaccination site fibrosarcomas
and feline post-vaccinal fibrosarcomas. J Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin
Med 50[6]:286-91 2003 AugVascellari M, Melchiotti E, Bozza MA, Mutinelli
F Research has also shown that the p53 gene that is the patient's
natural protection against cancer is deregulated by vaccines, leading to
unrestricted growth, and has been implicated in a number of types of
cancer. Progress in feline sarcoma research, JAVMA March 15, 2002.
"Although there are negative side effects reported, they are rare and
usually mild."
I find this statement to be particularly callous and uncaring. If it is
your pet that dies from an adverse reaction it is not rare, it is one
pet too many. A class action law suit was recently settled over "rare "
side effects to Rimadyl and because of "rare side effects to Proheart 6
the drug has been taken off the market by the FDA.
" It is important to realize that an "adverse event report" does not
indicate a documented cause/effect relationship. In other words, many of
the same animals that are vaccinated will go on to develop problems that
are reported as adverse events but have nothing to do with vaccination."
While cause and effect are difficult to prove, especially when the
reactions are one in twenty thousand, Veterinarians, Drug Companies and
the FDA use discretion when considering such reports. If anything these
reactions are under-reported, as reporting is voluntary. A recent survey
shows less than one in ten Veterinarians report adverse drug reactions.
"There has been mention that measuring antibody levels with vaccine
titers would be a better way to protect pets than routine vaccination.
There are several reasons why this is not true."
I agree that titers are a waste of money.
" Contrary to the opinion of some people, we are not in this business to
get rich but to help our patients."
As the famous Howard Hunt once said, " Whenever someone says it is not
about money, it is about money."
"We have chosen for years to start reminding our clients to bring in
their pets for a booster after two years. In this way, we minimize the
number of animals that lapse into a state of poor immunity. "
Studies by Aubert have been proven by challenge that rabies vaccine are
good for 5 years in dogs and 4 years in cats. The National Association
of State Public Health Veterinarians has published for three years in a
row "There is no scientific or epidemiologic evidence to support the
annual or bi-annual administration of rabies vaccine."
"Consider the relative risk and benefit of each vaccine in each patient
before deciding on a vaccination protocol."
This is what Veterinarians should have been doing for the past 9 years.
" With some hesitation, we have decided that we will adjust our
standard vaccine schedule to try to maximize protection while minimizing
potential adverse side effects."
This is all we could ask for, and all we ever really wanted. I feel this
is a win for both sides. Now we just need to get the other 6, 000
Veterinarians in the US to clean up their act in regards to recommending
unnecessary vaccines. All veterinarians must use their best
judgment to determine what is best for their patients
Robert Rogers, DVM
Critter Fixer Hospital
Spring, Texas
Dr. Robert Rogers, appears in today's Lincoln County News in response to
the September 16, 2004 letter from the veterinarians of Coastal
Veterinary Care in Wiscasset.
To the Editor:
In regards to the letter to the editor in
the September 16, 2004 issue of The Lincoln County News. by the
Veterinarians of Coastal Veterinary Care I would like to reply.
Coastal Veterinary Care was previously
vaccinating dogs every year with the distemper combo vaccine. The
Coastal Vet Care Drs state, " We have been discussing vaccine protocols
and the best way to protect your pets for years. For the past five years
or so, we have been carefully considering all the available studies and
reports. Due to a lack of convincing evidence, we have been waiting to
make any changes in our current well-proven protocol."
Convincing evidence has been around a long time. The issue of
over-vaccination was first addressed in the Journal of the AVMA in
August 15, 1995 where Dr Ron Schultz states" The client is paying for
something with no effect, except the patient is exposed to the risk of
an adverse reaction."
" At this time, there is no compelling evidence that
the available vaccines protect your pets for longer than three years."
This is not true. Dr Schultz published studies showing duration of
immunity to distemper and parvovirus of at least 7 years by challenge in
1998. More importantly, studies showing repeat administration of vaccine
have no effect were also published in 1998.
" There is absolutely no evidence that vaccination causes malignant
tumors in dogs."
This is not true. Vaccine associated sarcomas have been documented in
dogs. Fibrosarcomas at presumed sites of injection in dogs:
characteristics and comparison with non-vaccination site fibrosarcomas
and feline post-vaccinal fibrosarcomas. J Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin
Med 50[6]:286-91 2003 AugVascellari M, Melchiotti E, Bozza MA, Mutinelli
F Research has also shown that the p53 gene that is the patient's
natural protection against cancer is deregulated by vaccines, leading to
unrestricted growth, and has been implicated in a number of types of
cancer. Progress in feline sarcoma research, JAVMA March 15, 2002.
"Although there are negative side effects reported, they are rare and
usually mild."
I find this statement to be particularly callous and uncaring. If it is
your pet that dies from an adverse reaction it is not rare, it is one
pet too many. A class action law suit was recently settled over "rare "
side effects to Rimadyl and because of "rare side effects to Proheart 6
the drug has been taken off the market by the FDA.
" It is important to realize that an "adverse event report" does not
indicate a documented cause/effect relationship. In other words, many of
the same animals that are vaccinated will go on to develop problems that
are reported as adverse events but have nothing to do with vaccination."
While cause and effect are difficult to prove, especially when the
reactions are one in twenty thousand, Veterinarians, Drug Companies and
the FDA use discretion when considering such reports. If anything these
reactions are under-reported, as reporting is voluntary. A recent survey
shows less than one in ten Veterinarians report adverse drug reactions.
"There has been mention that measuring antibody levels with vaccine
titers would be a better way to protect pets than routine vaccination.
There are several reasons why this is not true."
I agree that titers are a waste of money.
" Contrary to the opinion of some people, we are not in this business to
get rich but to help our patients."
As the famous Howard Hunt once said, " Whenever someone says it is not
about money, it is about money."
"We have chosen for years to start reminding our clients to bring in
their pets for a booster after two years. In this way, we minimize the
number of animals that lapse into a state of poor immunity. "
Studies by Aubert have been proven by challenge that rabies vaccine are
good for 5 years in dogs and 4 years in cats. The National Association
of State Public Health Veterinarians has published for three years in a
row "There is no scientific or epidemiologic evidence to support the
annual or bi-annual administration of rabies vaccine."
"Consider the relative risk and benefit of each vaccine in each patient
before deciding on a vaccination protocol."
This is what Veterinarians should have been doing for the past 9 years.
" With some hesitation, we have decided that we will adjust our
standard vaccine schedule to try to maximize protection while minimizing
potential adverse side effects."
This is all we could ask for, and all we ever really wanted. I feel this
is a win for both sides. Now we just need to get the other 6, 000
Veterinarians in the US to clean up their act in regards to recommending
unnecessary vaccines. All veterinarians must use their best
judgment to determine what is best for their patients
Robert Rogers, DVM
Critter Fixer Hospital
Spring, Texas
- malernee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:56 pm
Bangor Maine rabies news
by malernee » Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:10 am
Greetings All!
The following article by Sharon Kiley Mack appeared in the September 10, 2004 issue of The Bangor Daily News.
http://192.168.1.217/temp/p1632549.HTM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New rabies rules to go into effect
By Sharon Kiley Mack
OF THE NEWS STAFF
Source:
Bangor Daily News
Friday, 10/08/2004
Edition: all, Section: b, Page 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUGUSTA - A controversy is swirling across the country regarding pet vaccinations, and, once again, Maine is in the forefront in enacting proactive legislation.
A new rule that more clearly aligns the timing of vaccinations with the recommendations of veterinary experts and vaccine manufacturers will go into effect next week while a bill promoting full disclosure of vaccination risks and side effects is being proposed.
Meanwhile, a key provision allowing exemptions for ill or allergic pets was omitted from the rule and now will begin its own rule-making process.
The new rule, which brings Maine regulations into line with the rest of the country, uses a three-year standard for revaccination, rather than a two-year standard. It will go into effect on Oct. 14, the day before 2005 dog licenses become available.
This is cause for celebration for Kris Christine of Alna, who first brought the regulation discrepancies to the public's attention when her family dog developed a cancerous tumor where it had been given the rabies booster shot.
"Even though it is a partial victory for the dogs of Maine, it is a victory," Christine said this week. "We have a bottle of champagne chilling and a bag of dog biscuits ready."
Meanwhile, Christine and other dog advocates are working hard to clarify vaccination exemptions and full disclosure by veterinarians regarding possible risks and side effects of all routine vaccinations.
Legislation is planned for the next session, which will further force veterinarians to offer clients vaccine risk assessment information. Sen. Chris Hall, D-Bristol, has vowed to introduce a bill in November that would require veterinarians to educate clients about the risks of vaccinating versus not vaccinating pets.
"I have had more e-mail, calls and letters on animal vaccinations than any other subject except human health care," Hall said Wednesday. "Like most jurisdictions, Maine does not collect data on pet mortality or morbidity, so it is hard to form impartial judgments on the possible side effects of vaccination or overvaccination, and, of course, the veterinary community is divided on these issues.
"My concern, in the light of great popular interest, is not to require arbitrary rules governing vaccination, but to better inform the public."
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association has announced that it will support increased client education but would prefer to handle the issue on its own, without legislation. Before Hall's bill is introduced, the association will be sending members vaccine brochures and developing a consent form for owners in an attempt to sidestep legislation.
Kristine said Hall's bill will be based on experts' studies of immunity results and would allow pet owners to choose to vaccinate pets once every seven years or less for distemper, parvo, hepatitis and other diseases instead of annually, biennially or triennially.
"Pet owners must have this information in order to make an informed choice, and the disclosure form must be drawn up by those professionals who do not have a direct financial interest," she said.
The following article by Sharon Kiley Mack appeared in the September 10, 2004 issue of The Bangor Daily News.
http://192.168.1.217/temp/p1632549.HTM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New rabies rules to go into effect
By Sharon Kiley Mack
OF THE NEWS STAFF
Source:
Bangor Daily News
Friday, 10/08/2004
Edition: all, Section: b, Page 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUGUSTA - A controversy is swirling across the country regarding pet vaccinations, and, once again, Maine is in the forefront in enacting proactive legislation.
A new rule that more clearly aligns the timing of vaccinations with the recommendations of veterinary experts and vaccine manufacturers will go into effect next week while a bill promoting full disclosure of vaccination risks and side effects is being proposed.
Meanwhile, a key provision allowing exemptions for ill or allergic pets was omitted from the rule and now will begin its own rule-making process.
The new rule, which brings Maine regulations into line with the rest of the country, uses a three-year standard for revaccination, rather than a two-year standard. It will go into effect on Oct. 14, the day before 2005 dog licenses become available.
This is cause for celebration for Kris Christine of Alna, who first brought the regulation discrepancies to the public's attention when her family dog developed a cancerous tumor where it had been given the rabies booster shot.
"Even though it is a partial victory for the dogs of Maine, it is a victory," Christine said this week. "We have a bottle of champagne chilling and a bag of dog biscuits ready."
Meanwhile, Christine and other dog advocates are working hard to clarify vaccination exemptions and full disclosure by veterinarians regarding possible risks and side effects of all routine vaccinations.
Legislation is planned for the next session, which will further force veterinarians to offer clients vaccine risk assessment information. Sen. Chris Hall, D-Bristol, has vowed to introduce a bill in November that would require veterinarians to educate clients about the risks of vaccinating versus not vaccinating pets.
"I have had more e-mail, calls and letters on animal vaccinations than any other subject except human health care," Hall said Wednesday. "Like most jurisdictions, Maine does not collect data on pet mortality or morbidity, so it is hard to form impartial judgments on the possible side effects of vaccination or overvaccination, and, of course, the veterinary community is divided on these issues.
"My concern, in the light of great popular interest, is not to require arbitrary rules governing vaccination, but to better inform the public."
The Maine Veterinary Medical Association has announced that it will support increased client education but would prefer to handle the issue on its own, without legislation. Before Hall's bill is introduced, the association will be sending members vaccine brochures and developing a consent form for owners in an attempt to sidestep legislation.
Kristine said Hall's bill will be based on experts' studies of immunity results and would allow pet owners to choose to vaccinate pets once every seven years or less for distemper, parvo, hepatitis and other diseases instead of annually, biennially or triennially.
"Pet owners must have this information in order to make an informed choice, and the disclosure form must be drawn up by those professionals who do not have a direct financial interest," she said.
- malernee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:56 pm
more on Maine rabies wavier letters
by malernee » Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:53 am
Greetings All,
Below is a response Dr. Haines sent yesterday in response to my inquiry about the medical exemption language for sick and/or allergic dogs to be inserted into the revised rabies immunization regulations. A number of you who have contacted me about your dogs with cancer due for a rabies booster are in regulatory limbo until perhaps the end of January. It would appear from the e-mail below that the Attorney General's Office is advising the Department of Human Services to avoid addressing the problem of how to handle sick and/or allergic dogs due for rabies boosters under the new rule.
I would advise any of you having difficulties with your local animal control officer or Town Clerk in accepting a medical waiver for licensing to contact the State officials responsible for this predicament and have them directly advise you on how to proceed. Contact information is below, you may also want to call Governor Baldacci's Office-- Richard Davies, Governor Baldacci's Senior Policy Advisor 287-3531.
Wish this message could have brought better news.
Kris
Maine State Officials working on the canine rabies regulation:
Dori Harnett, Senior Assistant Attorney General 626-8827
Paul Gauvreau, Assistant Attorney General 626-8800
Dr. Kathleen Gensheimer (state epidemiologist for Bureau of Health) 287-5183
Dr. Phil Haines (Deputy Dir. Bureau of Health) 287-3290
Dr. Robert Gholson (State Public Health Veterinarian, Division of Disease Control Bureau of Health) 287-3361, 287-2770
Norma Worley, Director of Animal Welfare, Dept. Agriculture 287-5531
Shelley Doak, Director Division of Animal Health & Industry 287-7610
Dr. Donald E. Hoenig, State Veterinarian Dept. Agriculture 287-3701
Dr. Christine Fraser, State Veterinarian, Dept. Agriculture, Division Animal Welfare 287-3846
----- Original Message -----
From: Haines, Philip W.
To: 'Peter & Kris Christine' ; Haines, Philip W. ; Doak, Shelley ; jaustin@memun.org ; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)' ; Gensheimer, Kathleen F. ; Gholson, Robert ; Mosher, Peter ; Fraser, Christine ; Worley, Norma J ; Hoenig, Donald E ; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)' ; Davies, Richard
Cc: Mills, Dora A. ; Gauvreau, Paul
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:46 AM
Subject: RE: Rabies Rule--Medical Exemptions Procedure
I will, indeed, be sending along the porposed amended language, and timelines. I am still in hopes of having an exemption inserted before the end of January.
Our attorneys have cautioned us about condoning actions not specifically allowed, but I have certainly gathered from all the testimony, and from other conversations, that Veterinarians have been writing exemption letters for some time, and towns and cities have been accepting them, despite no mention of this in the old rules, either. I think you should assure people that no one, especially a responsible veterinarian, will feel compelled to do harm to an animal. We will, never-the-less, get this into the rules quite soon, as it was clear from all the comments on the previous rule change that this was appropriate. You may assure people that we do not need a large flood of comments on the new proposal to persuade us of the need!
I will be in touch!
Phil Haines
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter & Kris Christine [mailto:LedgeSpring@lincoln.midcoast.com]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 7:06 AM
To: Haines, Philip W.; Doak, Shelley; jaustin@memun.org; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)'; Gensheimer, Kathleen F.; Gholson, Robert; Mosher, Peter; Fraser, Christine; Worley, Norma J; Hoenig, Donald E; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)'; Davies, Richard
Cc: Mills, Dora A.; Gauvreau, Paul
Subject: Rabies Rule--Medical Exemptions Procedure
Greetings Dr. Haines,
Could you please let us know what the procedure will be at this point for incorporating the medical exemption language into the law for sick and/or allergic dogs into DHS Chapter 260? I would like to make sure that we file comments and are able to follow the progress. A number of panicked pet owners with terminally ill dogs have been contacting me and I have no answers for them at this point.
We, and the many dog owners we represent, are very relieved that the rule has been changed to meet the national standard. Thank you for making sure that the process was unimpeded and for keeping us informed. Hopefully the medical exemption clause will not take long to insert. I assume you'll be sending out the amended language as an e-mail attachment in the near future.
Cheers from Alna, Kris
----- Original Message -----
From: Haines, Philip W.
To: Haines, Philip W. ; 'Peter & Kris Christine' ; Doak, Shelley ; 'jaustin@memun.org' ; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)' ; Gensheimer, Kathleen F. ; Gholson, Robert ; Mosher, Peter ; Fraser, Christine ; Worley, Norma J ; Hoenig, Donald E ; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)' ; Davies, Richard
Cc: Mills, Dora A. ; Gauvreau, Paul
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 3:17 PM
Subject: RE: Update on Rabies immunization rule
The rule was delivered to the Secretary of State's office yesterday and should be effective October 14! I briefed the Municipal Clerks in attendance at the Maine Municipal Association meeting this morning.
Bill Bryant, and the other vets, please try to be sure all vets know, and perhaps we can send a Health Alert Network message next week, too.
Thank you for all your help, and I will start the next round right off!
Phil Haines
Philip W. Haines DrPH
Deputy Director
Bureau of Health
Maine Department of Human Services
11 State House Station
Key Plaza 8th Floor
Augusta, ME 04333-0011
phone 207-287-3290
FAX 207-287-9058
philip.w.haines@maine.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Haines, Philip W.
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 3:06 PM
To: 'Peter & Kris Christine'; Haines, Philip W.; Doak, Shelley; jaustin@memun.org; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)'; Gensheimer, Kathleen F.; Gholson, Robert; Mosher, Peter; Fraser, Christine; Worley, Norma J; Hoenig, Donald E; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)'; Davies, Richard
Cc: Mills, Dora A.; Gauvreau, Paul
Subject: Update on Rabies immunization rule
Importance: High
I wanted to write to all of you to update you on the progress with the Canine Rabies Immunization Rules. I also apologize to Peter Christine for not returning his call, but I believe this will answer all of your questions.
Commissioner Nicholas signed the revised rule last week, and it is awaiting final signature in the Attorney General's office before filing with the Secretary of State. It carries an effective date of October 14, which is the day before the 2005 dog licenses become available.
The rule basically tracks that which we published in the Draft Rule for comments, with one change. Unfortunately, that change is not to insert a section on medical exemption, as no fewer than 6 attorneys in the Attorney General's office believed that such a change would exceed the bounds of the Adminstrative Procedures Act's requirements that any substantive change undergo another public comment period. To have waited for that would have delayed the implementation of this rule. We have assured people through the "response to comments" that we will initiate such a change process as soon as the current amendment is finalized.
The one change is to insert language to more easily accomodate computer generated forms from Vet's offices.
I am attaching the final rule text, and the response to comments. There are some Adminstrative Procedures Act forms available, but I am omitting them to keep this simple.
Thank you to all of you for your help in putting this together, and I assure you, we heard and agree with the comments on a medical exemption, and will proceed on that poste-haste.
Best wishes,
Phil Haines
Philip W. Haines DrPH
Deputy Director
Bureau of Health
Maine Department of Human Services
11 State House Station
Key Plaza 8th Floor
Augusta, ME 04333-0011
phone 207-287-3290
FAX 207-287-9058
philip.w.haines@maine.gov
Below is a response Dr. Haines sent yesterday in response to my inquiry about the medical exemption language for sick and/or allergic dogs to be inserted into the revised rabies immunization regulations. A number of you who have contacted me about your dogs with cancer due for a rabies booster are in regulatory limbo until perhaps the end of January. It would appear from the e-mail below that the Attorney General's Office is advising the Department of Human Services to avoid addressing the problem of how to handle sick and/or allergic dogs due for rabies boosters under the new rule.
I would advise any of you having difficulties with your local animal control officer or Town Clerk in accepting a medical waiver for licensing to contact the State officials responsible for this predicament and have them directly advise you on how to proceed. Contact information is below, you may also want to call Governor Baldacci's Office-- Richard Davies, Governor Baldacci's Senior Policy Advisor 287-3531.
Wish this message could have brought better news.
Kris
Maine State Officials working on the canine rabies regulation:
Dori Harnett, Senior Assistant Attorney General 626-8827
Paul Gauvreau, Assistant Attorney General 626-8800
Dr. Kathleen Gensheimer (state epidemiologist for Bureau of Health) 287-5183
Dr. Phil Haines (Deputy Dir. Bureau of Health) 287-3290
Dr. Robert Gholson (State Public Health Veterinarian, Division of Disease Control Bureau of Health) 287-3361, 287-2770
Norma Worley, Director of Animal Welfare, Dept. Agriculture 287-5531
Shelley Doak, Director Division of Animal Health & Industry 287-7610
Dr. Donald E. Hoenig, State Veterinarian Dept. Agriculture 287-3701
Dr. Christine Fraser, State Veterinarian, Dept. Agriculture, Division Animal Welfare 287-3846
----- Original Message -----
From: Haines, Philip W.
To: 'Peter & Kris Christine' ; Haines, Philip W. ; Doak, Shelley ; jaustin@memun.org ; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)' ; Gensheimer, Kathleen F. ; Gholson, Robert ; Mosher, Peter ; Fraser, Christine ; Worley, Norma J ; Hoenig, Donald E ; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)' ; Davies, Richard
Cc: Mills, Dora A. ; Gauvreau, Paul
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 9:46 AM
Subject: RE: Rabies Rule--Medical Exemptions Procedure
I will, indeed, be sending along the porposed amended language, and timelines. I am still in hopes of having an exemption inserted before the end of January.
Our attorneys have cautioned us about condoning actions not specifically allowed, but I have certainly gathered from all the testimony, and from other conversations, that Veterinarians have been writing exemption letters for some time, and towns and cities have been accepting them, despite no mention of this in the old rules, either. I think you should assure people that no one, especially a responsible veterinarian, will feel compelled to do harm to an animal. We will, never-the-less, get this into the rules quite soon, as it was clear from all the comments on the previous rule change that this was appropriate. You may assure people that we do not need a large flood of comments on the new proposal to persuade us of the need!
I will be in touch!
Phil Haines
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter & Kris Christine [mailto:LedgeSpring@lincoln.midcoast.com]
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 7:06 AM
To: Haines, Philip W.; Doak, Shelley; jaustin@memun.org; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)'; Gensheimer, Kathleen F.; Gholson, Robert; Mosher, Peter; Fraser, Christine; Worley, Norma J; Hoenig, Donald E; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)'; Davies, Richard
Cc: Mills, Dora A.; Gauvreau, Paul
Subject: Rabies Rule--Medical Exemptions Procedure
Greetings Dr. Haines,
Could you please let us know what the procedure will be at this point for incorporating the medical exemption language into the law for sick and/or allergic dogs into DHS Chapter 260? I would like to make sure that we file comments and are able to follow the progress. A number of panicked pet owners with terminally ill dogs have been contacting me and I have no answers for them at this point.
We, and the many dog owners we represent, are very relieved that the rule has been changed to meet the national standard. Thank you for making sure that the process was unimpeded and for keeping us informed. Hopefully the medical exemption clause will not take long to insert. I assume you'll be sending out the amended language as an e-mail attachment in the near future.
Cheers from Alna, Kris
----- Original Message -----
From: Haines, Philip W.
To: Haines, Philip W. ; 'Peter & Kris Christine' ; Doak, Shelley ; 'jaustin@memun.org' ; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)' ; Gensheimer, Kathleen F. ; Gholson, Robert ; Mosher, Peter ; Fraser, Christine ; Worley, Norma J ; Hoenig, Donald E ; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)' ; Davies, Richard
Cc: Mills, Dora A. ; Gauvreau, Paul
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 3:17 PM
Subject: RE: Update on Rabies immunization rule
The rule was delivered to the Secretary of State's office yesterday and should be effective October 14! I briefed the Municipal Clerks in attendance at the Maine Municipal Association meeting this morning.
Bill Bryant, and the other vets, please try to be sure all vets know, and perhaps we can send a Health Alert Network message next week, too.
Thank you for all your help, and I will start the next round right off!
Phil Haines
Philip W. Haines DrPH
Deputy Director
Bureau of Health
Maine Department of Human Services
11 State House Station
Key Plaza 8th Floor
Augusta, ME 04333-0011
phone 207-287-3290
FAX 207-287-9058
philip.w.haines@maine.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Haines, Philip W.
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 3:06 PM
To: 'Peter & Kris Christine'; Haines, Philip W.; Doak, Shelley; jaustin@memun.org; 'Lousie Lester (E-mail)'; Gensheimer, Kathleen F.; Gholson, Robert; Mosher, Peter; Fraser, Christine; Worley, Norma J; Hoenig, Donald E; 'Bill Bryant (E-mail)'; Davies, Richard
Cc: Mills, Dora A.; Gauvreau, Paul
Subject: Update on Rabies immunization rule
Importance: High
I wanted to write to all of you to update you on the progress with the Canine Rabies Immunization Rules. I also apologize to Peter Christine for not returning his call, but I believe this will answer all of your questions.
Commissioner Nicholas signed the revised rule last week, and it is awaiting final signature in the Attorney General's office before filing with the Secretary of State. It carries an effective date of October 14, which is the day before the 2005 dog licenses become available.
The rule basically tracks that which we published in the Draft Rule for comments, with one change. Unfortunately, that change is not to insert a section on medical exemption, as no fewer than 6 attorneys in the Attorney General's office believed that such a change would exceed the bounds of the Adminstrative Procedures Act's requirements that any substantive change undergo another public comment period. To have waited for that would have delayed the implementation of this rule. We have assured people through the "response to comments" that we will initiate such a change process as soon as the current amendment is finalized.
The one change is to insert language to more easily accomodate computer generated forms from Vet's offices.
I am attaching the final rule text, and the response to comments. There are some Adminstrative Procedures Act forms available, but I am omitting them to keep this simple.
Thank you to all of you for your help in putting this together, and I assure you, we heard and agree with the comments on a medical exemption, and will proceed on that poste-haste.
Best wishes,
Phil Haines
Philip W. Haines DrPH
Deputy Director
Bureau of Health
Maine Department of Human Services
11 State House Station
Key Plaza 8th Floor
Augusta, ME 04333-0011
phone 207-287-3290
FAX 207-287-9058
philip.w.haines@maine.gov
- malernee
- Site Admin
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 5:56 pm
amendment could go into effect by january
by guest » Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:52 am
Rabies exemption for dogs taking too long, critics say
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - Bangor Daily News
Submit Your Thoughts
Email This Article To A Friend Print This Article Go Back
AUGUSTA - Critics are claiming that the Maine Department of Health and Human Services is dragging its feet on crafting an exemption amendment to the recently approved rabies protocol. State officials say, however, that the process is ongoing and should be ready for comment by Dec. 1, nearly three months after it was promised.
The amendment would exempt certain dogs from vaccination if a veterinarian believes it would be damaging to a dog's health.
The exemption likely will be identical to an existing amendment for cats, that reads: "An owner or keeper of a cat is exempt from the requirements of this rule if a medical reason exists that precludes the vaccination of the cat. To qualify for this exemption, the owner or keeper must have a written statement signed by a licensed veterinarian that includes a description of the cat and the medical reason that precludes the vaccination."
Chris Kristine of Alna is the pet owner who began the campaign to revamp Maine's rabies rules after her dog developed a cancerous tumor at the site of its rabies injection. Kristine is continuing to put pressure on DHHS to get the exemption written for ill or allergic pets.
"It is ridiculous that this has taken this amount of time to change the word 'cat' to the word 'dog' and publish the amendment," she said Tuesday.
Meanwhile, dog licensing season is here, and some pet owners are worried. Laura Moon of Brunswick has two Jack Russell terriers that both have life-threatening cancer.
"My vet in Augusta said that vaccines would be contraindicated for both," Moon said Tuesday. "I am so afraid that with all the side effects of a vaccination, it would be kinder to euthanize them."
Philip Haines, DHHS deputy director, said Tuesday that the delay "is not putting dogs' lives at risk," since accepting letters of exemption for dogs is something that has been ongoing for decades. "Informally for years, veterinarians have been writing these letters," Haines said. "This was happening long before the protocol change, behind the scenes."
But the exemption needs to be written into the rule to be legal, he admitted.
Haines said that a number of issues have gotten in the way of the rabies amendment, including the flu shot crisis. "Along with that, we have had budget issues, and we are very short-staffed at the administrative level," he said.
Still, Haines said the amendment should be ready for public comment on Dec. 1. After 30 days of public comment, adoption could take place 20 days later. This means the amendment could go into effect by the end of January.
Due to public pressure, the state's rabies protocol was changed earlier this year from a two-year vaccination requirement to the national standard of three years. The rule was made final on Oct. 14.
However, the public pressed for an exemption in the rule for dogs whose medical condition would make vaccination inadvisable. The medical exemption could not be enacted with the original protocol change because the Maine Attorney General's Office determined it would be too much of a change in the rule. It therefore had to go through its own process.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - Bangor Daily News
Submit Your Thoughts
Email This Article To A Friend Print This Article Go Back
AUGUSTA - Critics are claiming that the Maine Department of Health and Human Services is dragging its feet on crafting an exemption amendment to the recently approved rabies protocol. State officials say, however, that the process is ongoing and should be ready for comment by Dec. 1, nearly three months after it was promised.
The amendment would exempt certain dogs from vaccination if a veterinarian believes it would be damaging to a dog's health.
The exemption likely will be identical to an existing amendment for cats, that reads: "An owner or keeper of a cat is exempt from the requirements of this rule if a medical reason exists that precludes the vaccination of the cat. To qualify for this exemption, the owner or keeper must have a written statement signed by a licensed veterinarian that includes a description of the cat and the medical reason that precludes the vaccination."
Chris Kristine of Alna is the pet owner who began the campaign to revamp Maine's rabies rules after her dog developed a cancerous tumor at the site of its rabies injection. Kristine is continuing to put pressure on DHHS to get the exemption written for ill or allergic pets.
"It is ridiculous that this has taken this amount of time to change the word 'cat' to the word 'dog' and publish the amendment," she said Tuesday.
Meanwhile, dog licensing season is here, and some pet owners are worried. Laura Moon of Brunswick has two Jack Russell terriers that both have life-threatening cancer.
"My vet in Augusta said that vaccines would be contraindicated for both," Moon said Tuesday. "I am so afraid that with all the side effects of a vaccination, it would be kinder to euthanize them."
Philip Haines, DHHS deputy director, said Tuesday that the delay "is not putting dogs' lives at risk," since accepting letters of exemption for dogs is something that has been ongoing for decades. "Informally for years, veterinarians have been writing these letters," Haines said. "This was happening long before the protocol change, behind the scenes."
But the exemption needs to be written into the rule to be legal, he admitted.
Haines said that a number of issues have gotten in the way of the rabies amendment, including the flu shot crisis. "Along with that, we have had budget issues, and we are very short-staffed at the administrative level," he said.
Still, Haines said the amendment should be ready for public comment on Dec. 1. After 30 days of public comment, adoption could take place 20 days later. This means the amendment could go into effect by the end of January.
Due to public pressure, the state's rabies protocol was changed earlier this year from a two-year vaccination requirement to the national standard of three years. The rule was made final on Oct. 14.
However, the public pressed for an exemption in the rule for dogs whose medical condition would make vaccination inadvisable. The medical exemption could not be enacted with the original protocol change because the Maine Attorney General's Office determined it would be too much of a change in the rule. It therefore had to go through its own process.
- guest
Pet Vaccine Disclosure legislation
by guest » Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:41 am
Greetings All!
Great news-- Representative Peter Rines of Wiscasset, Maine has just put in a bill for Pet Vaccine Disclosure legislation which will require veterinarians to give disclosure sheets prior to vaccinating pets and would also require them to give disclosure sheets with prescription medications. As you all know, this is precedent-setting legislation, and the Maine Veterinary Medical Association strongly attacked Senator Chris Hall when he first proposed this legislation -- we need a large show of public support to get this passed. Once it does, it is only a matter of time before other states follow suit. Representative Rines is the second Maine legislator willing to sponsor this legislation -- if it doesn't get enough support to pass, you can bet it will a long time before another legislator is willing to submit such a bill.
Representative Rines and I need your help to get this through. Here's what you can do. Write letters to the editor supporting this legislation (Maine newspapers with e-mails and fax numbers are below). Send this e-mail to all of your pet-owning friends and acqaintances -- ALL OF THEM! This legislation will apply to feline vaccines & medications as well. Permission is granted to cross-post this. For those of you who are members of dog clubs, please get your clubs to send Representative Rines (Rep. Peter Rines 334 Bradford Rd.Wiscasset, Me. 04578/ 207-882-9794) an official letter of endorsement & send a copy to the newspapers as an Op Ed as well as have individual members write to the papers. Breeders and kennel owners -- please send this e-mail to all of your clients. We need a strong public show of support. Any of the veterinarians on the list willing to come out openly on this would help immensely, especially when the public hearing comes up, or you can send this e-mail to your clients if you wish.
Listers from Britain, Australia and South Africa, please send in something -- you don't have to be from Maine or the US, every bit of input will help.
Maine residents, please contact your Representative and Senator and ask them to support Representative Rines' bill. If you don't have your Representative's contact information, click on this link: http://janus.state.me.us/house/townlist.htm and click on the following link to get contact information for your senator: http://www.state.me.us/legis/senate/.
We have a unique opportunity here -- there is momentum statewide, nationally, and internationally -- over 4,000 people have signed the pet vaccine disclosure petition started by Safer Vaccinations for Companion Animals http://www.petitiononline.com/petvax23/ With a small amount of your effort, we can get the first pet vaccine disclosure legislation in the country (perhaps even in the world) passed here in Maine. I have not heard of any other states with legislators willing to step up to the plate to do the right thing for companion animals, so let's make sure Representative Rines gets more than enough support for his pet vaccine disclosure bill!!
Maine's area code is (207)
Lincoln County News Fax #563-3127 Judy Finn
Lincoln County Weekly Fax #563-3615 Joan Grant
Wiscasset Newspaper Paula Gibbs Fax #882-4280
Boothbay Register Kevin Burnham, Editor Fax #633-7123
Bangor Daily News -- Susan Young, editor. Fax: 941-9476 letters@bangordailynews.net
Lewiston Sun Journal -- Fax #777-3436 David Farmer, Letters to the Editor Editor dfarmer@sunjournal.com
The Times Record -- Fax: 721-3151 Claire Bastien letters@timesrecord.com , the letters-to-the-editor editor,
York County Coast Star -- Fax #985-9050 .
The Courier Gazette Fax #596-6981 Tom Von Malder, Senior Editor tvonmald@courierpub.com
The Kennebec Journal Fax #623-2220 Opinion Page Editor: Anthony F. Cristan acristan@centralmaine.com
Journal Tribune (Biddeford, Sanford) Fax # 282-3138; Editorial Page Editor Gail Lemley at 282-1535 (ext. 324) or 1-888-429-1535 (Maine only) .
Central Maine Morning Sentinel 800-452-4666, Fax #861-9191 Acting Waterville City Editor: Glenn Turner, gturner@centralmaine.com
Ellsworth American Fax #667-7656
The Republican Journal Fax #338-5498 Daniel Dunkle, Editor; trjmail@courierpub.com; Tanya Mitchell, Assistant Editor; tmitch@courierpub.com
The Capital Weekly Fax #621-6006 cwmail@courierpub.com Joyce Grondin, Editor
Portland Press Herald main fax #791-6920 Kim Clifford, Letters to the Editor Editor
Great news-- Representative Peter Rines of Wiscasset, Maine has just put in a bill for Pet Vaccine Disclosure legislation which will require veterinarians to give disclosure sheets prior to vaccinating pets and would also require them to give disclosure sheets with prescription medications. As you all know, this is precedent-setting legislation, and the Maine Veterinary Medical Association strongly attacked Senator Chris Hall when he first proposed this legislation -- we need a large show of public support to get this passed. Once it does, it is only a matter of time before other states follow suit. Representative Rines is the second Maine legislator willing to sponsor this legislation -- if it doesn't get enough support to pass, you can bet it will a long time before another legislator is willing to submit such a bill.
Representative Rines and I need your help to get this through. Here's what you can do. Write letters to the editor supporting this legislation (Maine newspapers with e-mails and fax numbers are below). Send this e-mail to all of your pet-owning friends and acqaintances -- ALL OF THEM! This legislation will apply to feline vaccines & medications as well. Permission is granted to cross-post this. For those of you who are members of dog clubs, please get your clubs to send Representative Rines (Rep. Peter Rines 334 Bradford Rd.Wiscasset, Me. 04578/ 207-882-9794) an official letter of endorsement & send a copy to the newspapers as an Op Ed as well as have individual members write to the papers. Breeders and kennel owners -- please send this e-mail to all of your clients. We need a strong public show of support. Any of the veterinarians on the list willing to come out openly on this would help immensely, especially when the public hearing comes up, or you can send this e-mail to your clients if you wish.
Listers from Britain, Australia and South Africa, please send in something -- you don't have to be from Maine or the US, every bit of input will help.
Maine residents, please contact your Representative and Senator and ask them to support Representative Rines' bill. If you don't have your Representative's contact information, click on this link: http://janus.state.me.us/house/townlist.htm and click on the following link to get contact information for your senator: http://www.state.me.us/legis/senate/.
We have a unique opportunity here -- there is momentum statewide, nationally, and internationally -- over 4,000 people have signed the pet vaccine disclosure petition started by Safer Vaccinations for Companion Animals http://www.petitiononline.com/petvax23/ With a small amount of your effort, we can get the first pet vaccine disclosure legislation in the country (perhaps even in the world) passed here in Maine. I have not heard of any other states with legislators willing to step up to the plate to do the right thing for companion animals, so let's make sure Representative Rines gets more than enough support for his pet vaccine disclosure bill!!
Maine's area code is (207)
Lincoln County News Fax #563-3127 Judy Finn
Lincoln County Weekly Fax #563-3615 Joan Grant
Wiscasset Newspaper Paula Gibbs Fax #882-4280
Boothbay Register Kevin Burnham, Editor Fax #633-7123
Bangor Daily News -- Susan Young, editor. Fax: 941-9476 letters@bangordailynews.net
Lewiston Sun Journal -- Fax #777-3436 David Farmer, Letters to the Editor Editor dfarmer@sunjournal.com
The Times Record -- Fax: 721-3151 Claire Bastien letters@timesrecord.com , the letters-to-the-editor editor,
York County Coast Star -- Fax #985-9050 .
The Courier Gazette Fax #596-6981 Tom Von Malder, Senior Editor tvonmald@courierpub.com
The Kennebec Journal Fax #623-2220 Opinion Page Editor: Anthony F. Cristan acristan@centralmaine.com
Journal Tribune (Biddeford, Sanford) Fax # 282-3138; Editorial Page Editor Gail Lemley at 282-1535 (ext. 324) or 1-888-429-1535 (Maine only) .
Central Maine Morning Sentinel 800-452-4666, Fax #861-9191 Acting Waterville City Editor: Glenn Turner, gturner@centralmaine.com
Ellsworth American Fax #667-7656
The Republican Journal Fax #338-5498 Daniel Dunkle, Editor; trjmail@courierpub.com; Tanya Mitchell, Assistant Editor; tmitch@courierpub.com
The Capital Weekly Fax #621-6006 cwmail@courierpub.com Joyce Grondin, Editor
Portland Press Herald main fax #791-6920 Kim Clifford, Letters to the Editor Editor
- guest
Peter Rines' veterinary disclosure legislation
by guest » Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:02 am
The letter-to-the-editor below alerting the public to Representative Peter Rines' veterinary disclosure legislation (prines@verizon.net 334 Bradford Rd.Wiscasset, Me. 04578/ 207-882-9794) appears in today's Lewiston-Sun Journal (12/15/04). Similar (longer versions), but not identical letters on the same subject appear in the Lincoln County News, Lincoln County Weekly.
http://www.sunjournal.com/opinion/lette ... 215100.php
Lewiston Sun Journal
Vaccinations
Wednesday, December 15,2004
Rep. Peter Rines of Wiscasset is sponsoring legislation that will require Maine veterinarians to give disclosure forms to pet owners when prescribing medications and before vaccinating their animals.
This legislation will ensure that pet owners receive disclosure information detailing the risks, benefits and adverse side effects of veterinary vaccines and prescription medications, as well as the minimum duration of immunity for vaccines based on published challenge studies (in challenge studies, animals are injected with high doses of virulent virus to test immunity). The veterinary disclosure forms will be similar to those pharmacists are required to issue with human prescription medications.
Maine citizens have been unwittingly overvaccinating their pets on the advice of veterinarians who vaccinate annually, biennially and triennially with vaccines that actually provide immunity for several years. For example, challenge studies by Dr. Schultz demonstrated that canine distemper vaccine has a minimum duration of immunity of seven years, and Cornell University's challenge studies showed cats were completely immune to feline panleukopenia eight years after kittenhood vaccination.
Because redundant vaccination does not boost immunity and current scientific research increasingly points to overvaccination in triggering autoimmune and chronic disorders in animals, it is essential that pet owners be given full disclosure prior to vaccination in order to make informed choices and to be able to recognize symptoms of adverse reactions to vaccines or medications.
I would hope all concerned pet owners would support Rep. Rines' veterinary vaccine disclosure legislation and make Maine a healthier state for pets.
Kris L. Christine, Alna
http://www.sunjournal.com/opinion/lette ... 215100.php
Lewiston Sun Journal
Vaccinations
Wednesday, December 15,2004
Rep. Peter Rines of Wiscasset is sponsoring legislation that will require Maine veterinarians to give disclosure forms to pet owners when prescribing medications and before vaccinating their animals.
This legislation will ensure that pet owners receive disclosure information detailing the risks, benefits and adverse side effects of veterinary vaccines and prescription medications, as well as the minimum duration of immunity for vaccines based on published challenge studies (in challenge studies, animals are injected with high doses of virulent virus to test immunity). The veterinary disclosure forms will be similar to those pharmacists are required to issue with human prescription medications.
Maine citizens have been unwittingly overvaccinating their pets on the advice of veterinarians who vaccinate annually, biennially and triennially with vaccines that actually provide immunity for several years. For example, challenge studies by Dr. Schultz demonstrated that canine distemper vaccine has a minimum duration of immunity of seven years, and Cornell University's challenge studies showed cats were completely immune to feline panleukopenia eight years after kittenhood vaccination.
Because redundant vaccination does not boost immunity and current scientific research increasingly points to overvaccination in triggering autoimmune and chronic disorders in animals, it is essential that pet owners be given full disclosure prior to vaccination in order to make informed choices and to be able to recognize symptoms of adverse reactions to vaccines or medications.
I would hope all concerned pet owners would support Rep. Rines' veterinary vaccine disclosure legislation and make Maine a healthier state for pets.
Kris L. Christine, Alna
- guest
Representative Peter Rines' legislation on informed consent
by guest » Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:00 am
Greetings All!
Maine's Office of the Revisor of Statutes (287-1650) this afternoon gave me the assigned number of Representative Greetings All!
Maine's Office of the Revisor of Statutes (287-1650) this afternoon gave me the assigned number of Representative Peter Rines' legislation -- LR 883 -- An Act To Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms. Representative Rines (prines@verizon.net 207-882-9794; 334 Bradford Rd.Wiscasset, Me. 04578) is already hearing from mainstream veterinarians opposed to legislation requiring them to give pet owners disclosure forms.
It is imperative that Representative Rines and your legislators hear from the pet-owners in favor of this legislation. Unfortunately, they are already hearing from members of the veterinary community who seek to deny disclosure information to the public. An e-mail takes but a few minutes to send, so please contact your Representative and Senator and ask them to support this legislation. If you don't have your Representative's contact information, click on this link: http://janus.state.me.us/house/townlist.htm and on the following link to get contact information for your senator: http://www.state.me.us/legis/senate/ .
The public hearing on the medical exemption clause for dogs in rabies immunization requirement is being held in the Dirigo Health Building at 211 Main Street in Augusta on Thursday, January 6th from 1:30 - 3:00, I will e-mail you my testimony and update you after the hearing.
Thanks to all of you who have already contacted your legislators. Please spread the word by sending this e-mail to your pet-owning friends and acquaintances, we can't get this legislation through without overwhelming public support.
Cheers, Kris
-- An Act To Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms. Representative Rines (prines@verizon.net 207-882-9794; 334 Bradford Rd.Wiscasset, Me. 04578) is already hearing from mainstream veterinarians opposed to legislation requiring them to give pet owners disclosure forms.
It is imperative that Representative Rines and your legislators hear from the pet-owners in favor of this legislation. Unfortunately, they are already hearing from members of the veterinary community who seek to deny disclosure information to the public. An e-mail takes but a few minutes to send, so please contact your Representative and Senator and ask them to support this legislation. If you don't have your Representative's contact information, click on this link: http://janus.state.me.us/house/townlist.htm and on the following link to get contact information for your senator: http://www.state.me.us/legis/senate/ .
The public hearing on the medical exemption clause for dogs in rabies immunization requirement is being held in the Dirigo Health Building at 211 Main Street in Augusta on Thursday, January 6th from 1:30 - 3:00, I will e-mail you my testimony and update you after the hearing.
Thanks to all of you who have already contacted your legislators. Please spread the word by sending this e-mail to your pet-owning friends and acquaintances, we can't get this legislation through without overwhelming public support.
Cheers, Kris
Maine's Office of the Revisor of Statutes (287-1650) this afternoon gave me the assigned number of Representative Greetings All!
Maine's Office of the Revisor of Statutes (287-1650) this afternoon gave me the assigned number of Representative Peter Rines' legislation -- LR 883 -- An Act To Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms. Representative Rines (prines@verizon.net 207-882-9794; 334 Bradford Rd.Wiscasset, Me. 04578) is already hearing from mainstream veterinarians opposed to legislation requiring them to give pet owners disclosure forms.
It is imperative that Representative Rines and your legislators hear from the pet-owners in favor of this legislation. Unfortunately, they are already hearing from members of the veterinary community who seek to deny disclosure information to the public. An e-mail takes but a few minutes to send, so please contact your Representative and Senator and ask them to support this legislation. If you don't have your Representative's contact information, click on this link: http://janus.state.me.us/house/townlist.htm and on the following link to get contact information for your senator: http://www.state.me.us/legis/senate/ .
The public hearing on the medical exemption clause for dogs in rabies immunization requirement is being held in the Dirigo Health Building at 211 Main Street in Augusta on Thursday, January 6th from 1:30 - 3:00, I will e-mail you my testimony and update you after the hearing.
Thanks to all of you who have already contacted your legislators. Please spread the word by sending this e-mail to your pet-owning friends and acquaintances, we can't get this legislation through without overwhelming public support.
Cheers, Kris
-- An Act To Require Veterinarians to Provide Vaccine Disclosure Forms. Representative Rines (prines@verizon.net 207-882-9794; 334 Bradford Rd.Wiscasset, Me. 04578) is already hearing from mainstream veterinarians opposed to legislation requiring them to give pet owners disclosure forms.
It is imperative that Representative Rines and your legislators hear from the pet-owners in favor of this legislation. Unfortunately, they are already hearing from members of the veterinary community who seek to deny disclosure information to the public. An e-mail takes but a few minutes to send, so please contact your Representative and Senator and ask them to support this legislation. If you don't have your Representative's contact information, click on this link: http://janus.state.me.us/house/townlist.htm and on the following link to get contact information for your senator: http://www.state.me.us/legis/senate/ .
The public hearing on the medical exemption clause for dogs in rabies immunization requirement is being held in the Dirigo Health Building at 211 Main Street in Augusta on Thursday, January 6th from 1:30 - 3:00, I will e-mail you my testimony and update you after the hearing.
Thanks to all of you who have already contacted your legislators. Please spread the word by sending this e-mail to your pet-owning friends and acquaintances, we can't get this legislation through without overwhelming public support.
Cheers, Kris
- guest
41 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests