Another pet treat recall
Merrick Pet Care has recalled Junior Texas Taffy pet treats because of the potential for contamination with Salmonella. No illnesses have been reported but contamination of treats could pose a risk to both pets and owners.
Contamination of pet treats is not uncommonly reported, but the overall scope of the problem isn't well understood. Outbreaks of salmonellosis in people have been reported in association with handling contaminated treats. The impact on animal health is unclear. Most recalls are not associated with reports of animal illness, however it's possible that small numbers of sporadic cases of disease would not be identified or reported.
Recalls like this highlight the potential risk from any pet treat or pet food. You can never absolutely eliminate risk but you can do things that will probably reduce the risk and identify situations where there are greater concerns.
- Packaged treats may be lower risk than treats from bulk-bins, because a single contaminated item can lead to cross contamination of many others in these large bins.
- Individually packaged irradiated treats are presumably of little to no risk.
- "Human-grade," "premium" or other catchy descriptions have absolutely no meaning with regard to food safety.
- People should wash their hands or use a hand sanitizer after handling treats.
- Care should be taken when handling any animal-based pet treats, particularly in households that include people with compromised immune systems, infants, elderly individuals or pregnant women. In these households, particular attention needs to be paid to handwashing after contact with treats, or - better yet - avoiding treats (or at least non-irradiated treats) altogether.
Disinfectants and questionable advertising
Disinfectants aren't very important for your average pet owner. They are more of an issue for kennels and veterinary hospitals, but there are situations where disinfection of an area contaminated by a pet might be needed.This is particularly true for certain microorganisms that can persist in the environment for a long time. The "poster bug" for this in dogs is canine parvovirus.
As many pet owners know, canine parvovirus is a very hardy virus. It can live in the environment for years and is resistant to many commonly used disinfectants. Careful cleaning and disinfection may be required in some situations where an infected animal has been in an area, particularly if it has passed diarrhea. Choosing an appropriate disinfectant can be a problem.
Bleach is a good disinfectant and can kill parvovirus, but it's noxious and isn't a good option for many surfaces. At our hospital, we use accelerated hydrogen peroxide, an excellent disinfectant that can kill parvovirus, but it's more expensive. Many other disinfectants are out there, and many have claims on their labels that they can kill parvovirus. Unfortunately, many (or most) cannot. Some just have claims that aren't based on any evidence. Others provide somewhat misleading information that can confuse buyers.
A good example is a product I was asked about today. It was a quaternary ammonium disinfectant, a common class of disinfectants with variable and often poor killing effect on parvovirus. The product claimed to kill parvovirus, but on closer reading, there's a major issue. The disinfectant is supposed to be used at a dilution of 4.5 ounces per gallon of water, yet the parvovirus-killing claim was for a dilution of 18 ounces per gallon. So, it might really kill parvovirus, but if it only does so at 4 times the typical concentration, how useful is it?
Do people that are using it under the pretense that it kills parvo realize the issue? Probably not.
Would people actually use it at 4 times the regular concentration? Perhaps. But that makes it 4 times as expensive, at which point it might actually be cheaper to use a better disinfectant like accelerated peroxide.
Is this fair advertising? That's questionable. Yes, all the information is there, but you shouldn't have to read the fine print. If the product says it kills parvo, it should be proven to do so at the regular recommended concentration. If it only kills parvo at high concentrations, that should be written right alongside the statement that it kills parvo.
Buyer beware.
(Photo credit: Uwe Gille [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons)
Lions and tigers and glanders
Glanders, a very serious disease of horses, donkeys and mules caused by infection with the bacterium Burkholderia mallei, has made the news again in a rather unusual manner – it has been reported as the cause of an outbreak in lions and a tiger at an Iranian zoo in Tehran.
The story goes that two Amur tigers arrived at the Tehran zoo from Eastern Russia in April 2010 as part of an exchange program between the two countries. The tigers were supposed to be used to help restore the tiger population in northern Iran on the Miankaleh nature reserve, but their living quarters there were apparently still not ready, and thus they were being kept at the zoo. One of the tigers died in December 2010.
And that’s were the story starts to get a little dicey. The Iranians claim the tigers were imported already carrying the disease, and that the last case of glanders at the zoo was 50 years ago. The tigers had already been at the zoo for eight months - although the incubation period for glanders can be months in some cases, it is normally only weeks. The Russians of course insist that the tigers were completely healthy when they were transferred – they’d been thoroughly examined and quarantined prior to being moved. (This makes the most sense to me, since transporting an animal such a long distance is a major stress and increases the risk of illness, and transporting an animal that is already sick would be even more risky. Not a chance I would take with two members of a species of which there are fewer than 900 individuals left in the world.) They also pointed out that a sick tiger from the cold regions of Russia would be much more likely to succumb to illness during the very hot Iranian summer, not during the winter.
Another report said that three lions at the zoo also died from glanders in the last two months, and subsequently another 14 lions were diagnosed with the disease, all of which were put down by the authorities. The main concern seemed to be the spread of the disease from the big cats to the feral cat population, and then to the human population. This second report states that “the tiger died after being fed contaminated meat, though it is possible it could also be related to the glanders.” Yet another report said that the tiger was infected with feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV - the feline equivalent of HIV).
Facts to keep in mind:
- Glanders is an highly contagious disease, and highly fatal (B. mallei is even classified as a Class B bioterrorism agent).
- Animals that do recover from the disease can become long-term carriers of B. mallei, and are a risk to other animals (and people). Prompt euthanasia of affected animals is therefore often the primary means of controlling outbreaks (but the bacterium is susceptible to antibiotics).
- The infection can be transmitted to other animals (and people), usually through close direct contact or contact with oral and nasal secretions and discharge from skin ulcers. It can also be transmitted by eating tissues from infected animals.
- The bacterium is killed by most disinfectants, and UV radiation (sunlight).
Glanders can affect species other than equids, including people and cats, however there is very little information available about glanders in any felids, let alone lions and tigers. Theoretically it might be possible for the disease to spread from the zoo animals to feral cats and then to people, but I don’t know how many feral cats are brave (or stupid) enough to wander into a lion enclosure. There’s also a possibility that a glanders-positive feral cat may have infected the zoo cats (but again, it would have to be very brave, or very stupid). It is also unclear what tests were used to confirm that the big cats were infected with glanders, and it is unknown if other animals at the zoo have been tested. Since this is typically a disease of equids (and has also been found in goats and camels), I would certainly be checking these animals first.
The big question is, where did the glanders come from in the first place? It seems unlikely that the tigers brought it from Russia, when the disease is actually endemic in Iran (even though they’d had no diagnosed cases at the zoo for many years). Is there a carrier animal in the zoo? Were the animals infected by eating contaminated meat? Was it brought in by feral cats? The source needs to be identified and addressed or animals will continue to be infected, which is particularly bad news for the kinds of rare species that may be found in a zoological collection. Some more details about the testing would also be appreciated – given the severity of this disease, and the severity of the consequences for positive animals (euthanasia), one needs to be as sure as possible that these animals are infected with B. mallei and not something else.
Photo: Amur Tiger (Panthera tigris ssp. altaica) (click image for source)
Cowpox in a dog
Cowpox virus is an example of a virus with a misleading name. It's place in history is from Jenner's observation that milkmaids who had been infected with cowpox were resistant to smallpox, leading to the use of cowpox (which causes very mild disease) to protect against smallpox (which is very, very bad). While cattle can be infected, they are not the true host of this virus, and infections in cattle are actually quite rare.
Various rodents are the true reservoir of cowpox. Other species can be infected from contact with infected rodents, including people and pets. Among pets, cats are most commonly infected, with most reports coming from central Europe. Cats may be infected more often because they may more often have close encounters with rats, but they are probably also inherently more susceptible to the disease than dogs.
Cowpox infections in dogs are very rare, but a case was recently described in Veterinary Dermatology (von Bomhard et al 2011). It involved a five-month-old Rottweiller from Germany that developed a very mild case of cowpox, with a single nodule on its muzzle. The dog recovered uneventfully, but it was an interesting case of a rare disease in a dog, and one that has some human health considerations.
People can be infected with cowpox from pets. In particular, infections from pet rats have been a problem in central Europe over the past few years. Outbreaks of human infections have been identified associated with widespread dissemination of infected rats from infected breeding or distribution facilities. Infections have also been reported from cats, and cats are a significant concern because of their ability to be a bridge between wild rodents and people, and because of the close contact they tend to have with people.
It's not surprising that disease was so mild in this Rottweiller puppy, and the risk to people in contact with the dog was probably limited because of the mild nature of the infection. No human cases were reported associated with this dog. Human infections from dogs have not been reported, largely because the disease is so rare in dogs and perhaps because when they are infected, dogs tend to have very mild disease. Cowpox is of minimal concern for most pet owners, but it something to be aware of when obtaining a new rodent, especially in regions where cowpox is an issue, and when dealing with cats in areas where cowpox is endemic in wild rodents. Some basic preventive measures include:
- Pet rodents and cats (especially newly obtained rodents) that develop skin lesions should be handled with care and be examined promptly by a veterinarian.
- Wild rodents should never be caught and kept as pets (for various other reasons, as well).
- Contact between domestic pets (particularly pet rodents and cats) and wild rodents should be prevented.
Pets and strep
An upcoming article in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases entitled "Zoonoses in the bedroom" has attracted some attention in the press. I haven't been able to access a copy yet, but will probably write about it soon. However, one article that was written about the paper had a pretty weak lead-in piece:
"Nikki Moustaki knew something was wrong when she got strep throat for the sixth time in a year. Her doctor wanted to take out her tonsils. But Moustaki, an otherwise healthy 30-something, was determined to uncover the source of the infection. "I saw a bunch of specialists, and one suggested my dog might be a carrier," said Moustaki, a New York City-based dog expert and trainer. "I had never thought of that. When you think of contagious diseases in dogs you think of rabies and ringworm, you don't think of strep." After four walks a day on the streets of Hell's Kitchen, Moustaki's dogs -- a schnauzer called Pepper and Ozzie, a schnoodle -- would curl up beside her in bed. Following her doctor's surprising suggestion, Moustaki started cleaning Pepper and Ozzie's paws with baby wipes after each walk. And she's been strep-free ever since."
While it's good to see the potential role of pets in human disease considered (since it's often overlooked), this is a example of the opposite end of the spectrum: implicating pets with absolutely no evidence, and actually, contrary to all available evidence. Saying that cleaning her dogs' feet prevented her from getting strep throat makes little sense on many levels. Firstly, if it actually made the difference, then she wasn't really getting strep from the dogs, it was coming into the house on the dogs' feet from the ground outside. There's no evidence the outdoor environment is a relevant source of strep. If strep was present on the dogs' feet, it would have to make it to her nose and mouth, and that degree of contact is hopefully unlikely (and if present, it would be associated with a lot bigger concerns that strep). Further, despite various studies, there is no evidence that dogs are even rare reservoirs of Group A Streptococcus, the cause of strep throat. Recurrent strep throat in people is caused by repeated exposure to infected people.
Like I said, it's good to see recognition of the potential role of pets. The next step, however, has to be looking for the evidence. It's not hard to find a few good references that talk about the role (or lack thereof in this case) of pets in human strep infections. Implicating the pet and recommending a rather bizarre foot hygiene regimen isn't really helping anyone.
Is it just coincidence that the infections have stopped in this woman? Probably. Recurrent infections don't tend to go on forever. However, maybe her increased attention to cleaning her dogs' paws also led to her paying more attention (consciously or otherwise) to her own hygiene practices, which would have probably played a greater role in disease prevention.
Chinchillas and Giardia
One concern with uncommon pets is our relatively poor understanding of the infectious agents they may carry. For our "established" pet species, we have a reasonable understanding of what bugs tend to be present and which animals may be at higher risk. The less common the pet, the less research tends to be available, making it harder to assess risks and determine what types of prevention programs need to be in place.
A recent study published in Veterinary Parasitology (Levecke et al. 2010) provides information about chinchillas and the parasite Giardia. This Belgian study involved collection of stool samples from 80 healthy pet chinchillas from 4 households and 4 breeders. They identified Giardia in a rather astounding 66% of samples. Young animals were more likely to be infected, as were animals that participated in shows (I didn't realize there were chinchilla shows).
A subset of samples were typed using molecular techniques to determine the Assemblage (strain/type) of the Giardia. This is very important from a human health standpoint, because some types of Giardia can infect both animals and humans, while others are more host-specific. Most samples (86%) contained Assemblage B. However, a combination of different Assemblages was common, and Assemblages C (71%), A (52%) and E (9.5%) were also found. Importantly, all positive samples contained at least one of Assemblages A or B, which are types that can cause disease in people. Assemblage C is typically associated with dogs and Assemblage E with livestock, so those results were a little surprising.
What does this tell us? It tells us that a large percentage of healthy chinchillas may be shedding Giardia in their stool, and that they typically shed types that can cause disease in people.
Does this mean people are getting sick from pet chinchillas? Not necessarily, but it indicates there is a risk.
What can chinchilla owners do? It's pretty straightforward. Giardia has to go from the animal's stool to a person's mouth to cause infection. The use of good general management and hygiene practices (especially handwashing) should greatly reduce the risks. As the folks at Barfblog say, "don't eat poop."
Should chinchillas be tested for Giardia? Probably not. A single negative result does not necessarily mean Giardia isn't there or that it never will be. Given the numbers reported here, it's best to go on the assumption that every chinchilla is (or could be) positive, and take appropriate precautions.
Reducing risks with raccoon latrines
An interesting paper in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases (Page et al. 2011) describes an impressively large effort to study the effect of anthelmintic (dewormer) baiting on parasite contamination at raccoon latrines sites in Indiana.
Raccoon latrines can be highly contaminated with various parasites, because raccoons congregate at these sites and use them as "communal toilets." Of all these parasites, the raccoon roundworm, Baylisascaris procyonis, gets the most attention. It is very common in raccoons, but it is also a very rare cause of disease in people who swallow the infective parasite eggs from the environment. In some of these people the parasite larvae can cause very serious neurological disease which can be very difficult to treat.
In this study, the research team identified 559 raccoon latrines in north-central Indiana. They removed debris from the areas and used a torch to help kill the parasite eggs that were there (this is one of the very few effective ways to kill the very hardy eggs of Baylisascaris). At a selection of latrine sites, they also collected baseline fecal samples. After this was all done, they distributed dewormer (pyrantel pamoate) baits in half the areas once a month (leaving the other half of the areas as controls). They then collected fecal samples at all the latrine sites approximately 6, 12 and 18 months later.
Fecal samples were tested for B. procyonis eggs. Also, they captured mice from some of the study patches. Like people, mice are intermediate hosts for B. procyonis, and they can be infected in the same manner, so researchers looked for B. procyonis larvae in the brains of the mice.
Overall, they tested 1797 fecal samples. In the first round of sampling, 33% of samples contained B. procyonis eggs. The prevalence of eggs decreases significantly (3-fold) after baiting by the first recheck, and stayed at that level throughout the study. By the one-year sample time, there was also a significant decline in B. procyonis larvae in the brains of mice (27% vs 38%).
This impressive study shows the potential impact of controlled and somewhat practical interventions on the presence of some concerning microorganisms. Certainly, no one is going to be able to treat all raccoon latrines with a torch. However, dewormer baiting might be a consideration in areas that are close to human populations, along with other control measures. Dewormer baiting could be relatively cost-effective in this case. It won't eliminate the problem, but it might help reduce environmental contamination and the associated potential for human and domestic animal exposure.
More information about Baylisascaris and raccoon latrines is available in our archives.
Rabies in an animal shelter
Today's edition of CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report includes a report about rabies exposure in an animal shelter.
The situation occurred in March 2010, when a stray dog taken to a North Dakota animal shelter was diagnosed with rabies. An investigation was undertaken to look into human and animal exposure.
- Potential exposure was investigated in 32 people. Of these, 21 were determined to fit criteria for requiring post-exposure prophylaxis. This included nine shelter employees and one volunteer.
- Twenty-five dogs at the shelter were considered exposed. According to the report "In accordance with 2009 Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control guidance (1), the 25 dogs in the shelter with the rabid dog were euthanized." That's a somewhat misleading statement. Immediate euthanasia is not the only recommendation in this kind of situation, it's just one of the options. In a dog that has not been vaccinated (or whose vaccination status is unknown), euthanasia OR six months of strict quarantine is indicated. The decision to euthanize was probably a logistical one, not being able or wanting to quarantine this many dogs for such a long period of time. It's a reasonable decision given limited isolation capacity (and budget).
- Twenty-five other unvaccinated dogs that were adopted or claimed by their owners were also exposed. (Presumably, these were dogs that had contact with the infected dog, then went to homes before the rabid dog was diagnosed). Of these, 11 were euthanized, 13 were quarantined for 6 months at home, and one was 'unintentionally killed' (whatever that means). All euthanized dogs were tested and were negative for rabies.
A few issues were raised in the report:
Rabies vaccination of shelter personnel: "In addition, preexposure prophylaxis for animal shelter workers or other persons whose activities bring them into frequent contact with potentially infected animals should be considered, in accordance with Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations (6)" This is a complex issue. It would be ideal for all shelter employees to be vaccinated, and I'd love to see that done. The problem is actually getting it done. Shelters often have many employees and volunteers, and a very transient worker population. Getting all these people vaccinated is tough. Vaccinating short term, part time and temporary employees is tough enough, let alone volunteers. Cost is also an issue. Is it realistic to make people volunteering or earning low wages to pay the expensive cost of vaccination? Can shelters afford to pay for vaccination? What happens if someone doesn't want to be vaccinated? This is an ongoing issue in shelter medicine and one where there is no clear consensus. Shelter personnel clearly fit standard recommendations as being a group in which vaccination should be considered, but it's easier said than done.
Vaccination of animals: "First, all domestic animals should be vaccinated against rabies, in accordance with guidelines (1,8)." This is another issue that is very good in principle but tougher in practice. Rabies vaccination must be done by a veterinarian in most regions, and most shelters do not have a resident veterinarian. Getting animals vaccinated promptly after admission can be difficult. Ideally, shelters would have better and closer relationships with veterinarians, but it's quite variable (and an area that needs improvement). Vaccination would also not help much in some situations, since it does not result in immediate protection. Dogs that are vaccinated are not considered protected for 28 days. Therefore, even if they were vaccinated at arrival, some of the dogs in this situation would still be considered unprotected. Nonetheless, I don't want to dismiss the role of vaccination, and I think shelters need to significantly increase rabies vaccination rates. It's not a simple problem, however.
Contact in the shelter: "Second, animals without documentation of vaccination against rabies should be kept separate from the public, wildlife, and other animals to prevent transmission of the virus (5,8)." Another "good in principle, but have you ever been to a shelter?" statement. Shelters don't have lots of space. Having enough room to properly separate incoming, sick, and adoption animals is hard enough. Having to separate all those groups into rabies-vaccinated and non-vaccinated, or individually isolate animals, is going to be impossible logistically in most facilities. The concept of cohorting animals of different risks is excellent and can be improved on, it's just not possible to isolate all animals that are unvaccinated or of unknown vaccination status (i.e. almost every animal coming into a shelter). This is particularly true since they are not considered protected until 28 days after vaccination.
Infection control practices: "In this case, 36 dogs had to be euthanized because employees and volunteers might not have consistently followed the shelter's policy of preventing muzzle-to-muzzle contact between dogs." Compliance with infection control practices is an issue, and it could be improved. It's an area we're working on now.
Definition of contact: In this particular situation, a very broad definition of contact (that may result in exposure) was used. "Although the shelter's animal handling policies likely minimized contact among dogs, muzzle-to-muzzle contact could not be ruled out; therefore, BOAH and NDDoH recommended that all dogs present in the shelter from March 9--20 be euthanized." It's quite unlikely that any of these other dogs were truly exposed if this is the only kind of contact they may have had with the rabid dog. Balancing public health and animal welfare is difficult. Certainly, you need to err on the side of caution, but how far do you go? Quarantine would have been ideal because of the extremely low likelihood of exposure, however if it's not practical (or feasible or affordable) in a shelter situation, euthanasia may be the only option.
This was a bad situation but it's not surprising, nor will it be the last time it happens. A single rabid dog led to the euthanasia of 36 other dogs, and expensive (and probably stressful) treatment of 21 people. Shelter management can be improved to reduce the risk of this happening, but there's no way to absolutely prevent it.
Miami Beach's Cat Poop Map
Miami Beach officials, disturbed by reports of a hookworm outbreak, have taken a rather unique approach to the problem: they've created a cat and cat poop map.
This fall, several cases of cutaneous larval migrans were reported - and highly publicized - in the Miami Beach area, something that is of particular concern for a tourist city that doesn't want people thinking the city's beaches are biohazardous.
Cutaneous larval migrans is a skin condition caused by migration of hookworm larvae through the skin. Dogs and cats can be carries of hookworms and pass eggs in their feces. Larvae then hatch from these eggs and can penetrate the skin (of people and animals alike) after being in the environment for a few (usually 2-9) days. If someone has contact with infectious larvae, such as by stepping on them while bare foot on a beach, the larvae get into their skin and start migrating, causing this very itchy skin condition.
Feral (stray) cats are the main problem in Miami Beach. Stray cats and beaches are a bad combination, since stray cats tend to have high rates of hookworm carriage, they often defecate in sand on the beach, and of course people often have direct contact between bare skin and beach sand. Identifying where stray cats live (and poop) is important for disease control and public education. "We needed to identify where the cats are eating — and where they're pooping — to address this problem" stated a program organizer. To do this, city sanitation workers were given GPS devices and instructions to go find cats. Data were uploaded into a mapping system, and areas where cats tend to congregate were identified. Not surprisingly, certain areas of sane dunes are being used as industrial-sized litterboxes by the cats.
This type of information can be used in several ways. It can be useful for evaluating cat populations: where they are, where they go, and what happens to them over time. It can help identify areas where the cat population needs to be addressed through measures such as trap, neuter and release programs (as are being used in Miami Beach). It can also help with development of targeted education programs, by putting up warnings in heavily cat- and cat poop-infested areas. City health officials think that the combination of tracking, the increased spay/neuter program and targeted warnings to sunbathers have helped staunch the outbreak.
Image source: http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com
Rabies follies in Massachusetts
A recent news report from Berkshire, Massachusetts that was highlighted by ProMed is a strange and concerning story of rabies exposure.
The story involves two people that were stalked and attacked by an aggressive fox. One man was attacked in his driveway. He fought the fox off with a smoker lid, but several hours later it attacked and attached itself to a woman next door who was outside collecting her recycling bin. The fox bit her multiple times, and it took 20 minutes (with the aid of the same smoker lid - apparently a good fox extractor) to remove the fox from the woman’s leg. The man then killed the fox.
The woman’s sister called the police, who dispatched paramedics and suggested they call Animal Control to get the fox tested for rabies.
So far, so good. Unfortunate attack but managed as well as can be expected.
Anyway, when the paramedics arrived, they told the woman that she didn’t need to go to the hospital. A little more information in the article would have been nice here. Based on the severity of the injury, the response of the paramedics probably makes sense. The fox had bitten her, but the bites didn’t appear to be too serious from a trauma standpoint, and racing her off to the hospital in an ambulance was not required. However, rabies exposure is a major concern and this scenario raises a good question: What is the role of paramedics in thinking about and educating people about the risk of rabies exposure? Ideally, paramedics should know enough to tell people that they should seek medical care when there has been potential exposure to rabies. I don’t know whether this is the case, however. If someone isn’t injured enough to require emergency care, is that all that the paramedic needs to assess?
The woman then had a relative drive her to the emergency room. If this was because of concerns about the severity of bites, then that makes sense. If it’s from a rabies exposure standpoint, then it’s overkill. Assessment of rabies exposure and starting treatment is considered a medical "urgency," but not an "emergency." Basically, that means you don’t need to be treated immediately and you have time to go to a regular physician. In this case, going to her physician the next day would have made the most sense, since emergency rooms are not the ideal place for rabies assessment and exposure treatment.
The fox was rabid in the end, and the woman was started on rabies post-exposure treatment. Even if this was an inefficient way of getting care, the key point is that she was treated. Rabies is almost invariably fatal but is almost 100% preventable with proper post-bite care.
The description of her treatment is strange, however. “On Monday she began the lengthy series of anti-rabies vaccinations, which included injections into each bite mark. She returned to the hospital for another shot on Thursday and learned that she has 10 more vaccinations to endure this month, with each hospital visit at a USD 75 co-pay.” This makes no sense. Current-day rabies post-exposure treatment consists of a series of 4 doses, not 10 or more.
Another strange part of this story is the apparent difficulty the two victims had getting the animal tested. The people who were attacked claim “I called a rabies hotline and nobody picked up." As a result, the fox's body sat on the woman's property for three days until they took it to a local vet clinic, that shipped the fox’s body for testing. In another strange twist, it seems the woman had to pay for testing herself. That makes absolutely no sense. This is clearly an animal with a high likelihood of having rabies and a situation where there has been clear exposure of a person. The rabies status of the animal must be determined and requiring people to pay for that themselves makes no sense.
By the time I posted this story, the Berkshire newspaper had pulled the article from its website. I don’t know why. It could because the story was poorly written or the information was incorrect. Regardless, it raises some interesting issues.
