Proposed US dog importation changes
The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has announced proposed changes to dog importation rules. The changes would tighten rules for dogs being brought into the country for resale, research or veterinary treatment. The reason for the sudden changes isn't clear, but it may be the result of a couple of high-profile importations of rabid dogs. Regardless, it makes sense to pay more attention to companion animal importations, as long as the requirements are practical. The practicality aspect is of particular concern for the large number of people that travel between Canada and the US with their dogs, which is pretty low-risk from an infectious disease standpoint. Balancing policies that help prevent introduction of serious diseases with rules that don't unnecessarily complicate the frequent cross-border movement of people and their pets can be tough. This proposal doesn't cover pet dogs, which is both good and bad.
With the proposed changes, dogs imported for resale, research or veterinary treatment must have:
- an original health certificate
- a valid rabies vaccination certificate
- have an APHIS-issued import permit
The health certificate must clearly describe the dog and certify that:
- it's at least six months of age
- it was vaccinated no more than 12 months prior to the date of importation against distemper, hepatitis, leptospirosis, parvovirus and parainfluenza virus
- it's in good health and "free of any infectious disease or physical abnormality that would endanger the dog or other animals or endanger public health, including parasitic infection, emaciation, lesions of the skin, nervous system disturbances, jaundice or diarrhea."
That's pretty standard, however the last statement can sometimes cause issues. Here, the language is better than in some other protocols because it says "disease," not "infection." It may seem like a minor point, but to me it means a lot. If someone asks me to certify that my dog does not have an infectious disease, I can do that. She doesn't have any clinical evidence of an infection. If someone asks me to declare that she's free of infection, it gets trickier, because infection could be interpreted as disease, but it could also be interpreted as simply carrying an infectious agent. Every dog is carrying multiple microorganisms that could "endanger the dog or other animals or endanger public health" but the risk is rather low from clinically healthy dogs. No veterinarian can ever certify that a dog is not carrying any microorganism that could cause disease.
The restriction of importation for veterinary treatment is a bit of a concern, because in some areas the closest veterinary clinics or referral centres are across the border (one way or the other). It's a difficult issue, because dogs being taken to a veterinarian may be sick, and a veterinarian can't certify that such an animal is free of disease. The report states that "limited exceptions" will be made for the health certificate and rabies vaccination certificate for dogs imported for veterinary care. What "limited exceptions" means and how quickly an exemption can be obtained may determine whether this will impact the availability of veterinary care in some border regions.
Overall, more scrutiny of dog importation makes sense, particularly dogs being imported from developing countries where a variety of imported or exotic diseases may be present. However, these rule changes won't necessarily have an impact on some of the import-associated disease problems that have occurred recently. The current changes only involve dogs imported for resale, research or veterinary treatment. Importation of dogs for research is presumably uncommon and research colonies have pretty strict rules, so I doubt there's a lot of risk there. I also think it would be quite rare for dogs from high risk areas to be imported for research. Importation for veterinary care is also pretty uncommon and I'm not aware of it being implicated in imported disease. I don't know how often dogs are imported for resale, and this may be the area in which these changes have the biggest potential impact. Whether a dog from a Canadian or Mexican puppy mill is any higher risk to other dogs and the public than dogs from (much more common) American puppy mills is debatable. It would be nice to see a proper risk assessment that indicates which situations are the highest risk.
http://www.wormsandgermsblog.com/admin/trackback/257951
I'm Canadian, but I can literally see the city of Buffalo from my house. My options for "out of the normal" vets are either in Buffalo or Guelph (OVC). I guess, since I don't think my dog needs a vaccination for hepatitis or lepto, never mind the additional cost and time to get both a health certificate and APHIS permit, to get a decent dental x-ray, I'll be making the 90 minute drive to Guelph from now on.
Mind you, some of our import regs are just as ridiculous.
Proposed US dog importation changes
Your Question / Comment (Preview) Dr Arnold L. Goldman - September 5, 2011 9:59 AM
Dr Weese: Hidden from view is perhaps the biggest reason for this much needed new rule, the mostly unfettered importation of "rescue" dogs from foreign nations and US territories. The media hypes the "overpopulation" issue here in the US, but knows nothing of the mass importation without oversight, overland and by plane and boat, of foreign or territorial origin unowned and stray dogs, by for profit "non-profits" across the US. Either we have too many native origin unowned dogs which leads to mass euthanasia or we don't. if we do, there is no reason to import from out of the country to add to our burden, and if we don't, we have solved our problem and there is no reason to import other land's problems here. Better to help with public education and reproduction limitation programs on their own ground. This is an animal health (heartworm, demodex, babesia, screwworm etc) public health (rabies, perhaps leishmania, others) consumer protection (cost of care, costs of post surrender animal control and shelter due to unaffordable and unexpected treatment costs) and humane (transportation safety and health, native animal contagion, native animal non-adoption) issue. Finally, the unowned pet animal issue is used as a loss leader and public relations program by extreme animal rights organizations to fund their anti-agriculture, anti-research, anti-human society use of animals agendas. Solving the so-called "overpopulation" issue is essential to create transparency among and between all these issues so each can be viewed on its merits. If you've seen the Sarah McLaughlin ASPCA TV spots, then you know exactly what I mean. Larger chicken cages has nothing to do with "abused, beaten, neglected dogs" as she so aptly misrepresents.
Great comment. It's not clear to me whether this rule change will actually apply to rescues if they are not for resale. If a group imports them as owned dogs (owned by the rescue) and adopted but does not resell, I'm not sure they'd be covered. Importation of rescues is an interesting area, since we've dealt with problems from "Katrina" rescues (even though the ages of many of these dogs mean they born years after the hurricane). Considering we don't have a shortage of dogs in shelters here, I don't see why the resources are spent on these international rescues.
The change will help with rescue importation issues because of how "resale" is defined, to include anything beyond de minimus compensation including donations. Single dog imports for a small breeding line are de minimus. But if an organization brings 100, 300 or 5000 dogs a year, which incidentally some do, then with the "donations" taken together that is well beyond "de minimus" compensation. Look at organizations like "saveasato" (http://saveasato.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=28) for the general idea.
There are hundreds of these groups and thousands of dogs being moved into the US annually, sometimes merged with domestic-origin dogs in shelters and shelter organizations. Rescue is a huge industry now, with several, perhaps two dozen, professional trucking companies (for example "Peterson Express Transport Services LLC, http://www.petsllc.net/index.php) moving thousands of dogs overland every weekend for distribution in commuter lots and at weekend events across the northeast, upper midwest and northern California, Washington and Oregon. There are even private pilot organizations doing the same.
CT has passed a law to control the importation so as to protect the health of these imports and existing CT dogs, CGS 11-187, to take effect 10/1. Too many ill animals have burdened adopters over the last 3 to 5 years. Too many surrendered back to local shelters to allow the practice to continue uncontrolled because its called something other than "sale."
We have no shortage of unowned animals in the US which has led and continues to lead to mass euthanasia, and which makes international and inter-territorial importation of rescue dogs unwise. It occurs despite this and on the scale it does because of the profits and the ideology involved. That money stream may also be helping to fund extreme animal rights agenda initiatives unrelated to dog rescue in the US. Those involved may be "sympatico" with those views and use derived funds to support these other organizations. That is however purely conjecture on my part. We shall see.
In addition in the US we have the "Animal Welfare Act" to regulate the care of animals in commerce. Although some US kennels go underground to duck regulation, most of the US commercial pet industry (that part of the industry that sells to the ultimate consumer indirectly through middlemen and pet stores) is closely regulated and much improved from the days before the Animal Welfare Act was passed. To listen to the animal rights advocates one could think nothing had changed, but that is false. That said, few dogs coming in from Mexico, Eastern Europe and Asia are regulated. In 2006 more than 10,000 foreign dogs landed at O'Hare International Airport, 51% without health certificates. The current regulations have allowed importers to vaccinate and confine those dogs themselves. It's a wild west show now and it needs to be controlled.