The sponsor of the bill has pulled it from the hopper for now. The target of the bill was vets in Colorado who where marketing annual rabies vaccinations. The sponsor may reintroduce the bill at a later time if the state vets do not stop pushing annual rabies shots.

Sponsor pulls bill-- Denver Post

Looks like it was one way to address over-vaccination.

I'm curious as to what you think is "stupidity"????

I think that endangering public health on the basis of 'personal choice' is stupidity. And since rabies is the only vaccine mandated by state law, had the new bill passed, that's exactly what would have happened.

We can argue about the relevance of annual vaccinations for things like bordatella or parvovirus. We can agree to diagree on them, but rabies vaccinations are known NOT to confer lifelong immunity or even perfect immunity which is why on exposure to a known rabid animal you have to have post exposure treatment even if you've had shots before. There is no question here.

I do not mind someone not revaccinating their dog for rabies IF two crucial conditions are met: 1 -- that they have their dog tested for existing immunity by an approved, well-tested method (like the laboratories that are currently accredited to handle rabies immunity testing for animals due to be shipped to the U.K. and other rabies-free countries) and 2 -- should the results not be strongly positive that they are willing to revaccinate. Which is something many people afraid of vaccination are not willing to do, which is at the heart of it, when all is said and done.

No excuses.

Dei.

Extending the limits of annual vaccination requirements, isn't exactly leaving it up to personal choice.

Nor, as I stated, is making titer results pass as the requirement for yearly registrations or for other health requirements related to boarding and similar conditions.

Do you understand how the system works over here?

And if your vet is advocating vaccinations at every visit, you had better learn about what they are for and what the risks and benefits are before you just say, OK do it.

Dei, have you ever had the human version of the rabies vaccine? I was considering getting it once, and everyone that I talked to told me to NOT get it if I could possibly avoid it (including the vet I worked for and the tech I worked with). Obviously it makes you feel like crap. If you are advocating giving a vaccine (that has been proven effective for three years) to dogs every year then I strongly suggest that you experience the "joy" of getting the rabies vaccine yourself.

I will continue to do three year vaccines, and as long as the vaccines are labelled for three years and not one it will be the manufacturer that someone sues and not me should there be a freak incident. Most of these incidents are due to improperly manufactured/handled vaccines anyway.

I think your time might be better spent worry if the ceiling fan will fall on top of you and kill you <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> .

Actually, Lauren, I have had the human version of the rabies vaccine and it was far from the worst shot I've ever had (that dubious honour goes to a course of antibiotic injections I had to have when I had a bad case of bronchitis *wince*). I took it as part of the requirements for observing/volunteering at the Cornell University Veterinary clinic, back in those wonderful undergrad days when major changes in life circumstances hadn't yet made me decide to be an engineer rather than a vet (interest in animals is something I still just...can't get out of me).

My issue with the proposed law begins with preventing vets from giving rabies shots more frequently than the current state law recommends. Vets *do* need the discretion to ask for more frequent inoculation depending on local conditions, for example during outbreaks. To have that banned by law is not in anyone's best interests. If people feel that they are abusing that discretion, well that's a fair issue for discussion. But they must have it.

However, am I right in guessing that it's not veterinary discretion that's at issue here really and instead the fear that vaccines are really dangerous things which contribute to vast galaxies of non-infectious conditions yea unto death that's really the concern here? Got plenty to say about that, but first let's get on an even footing. Is that the concern?

Dei.

I have to agree on the human shots not being bad. I had to have the rabies vaccinations when I ran a quarantine here for 9 exposed horses. Through that I learned more about the virus than I ever care to about any virus again, but the shots were not bad. I had a tetnus at the same time (opposing arm) and it was FAR worse than the rabies.

The immunoglobin(sp) is far more uncomfortable than the preventitive, especially if you are the lucky one that has to have 5 shots in the bite site.

Thanks to 6 months of quarantine on a vaccination that is not even required in this state for horses, I know understand how important it is to NEVER let this vaccination expire. One poor horse was 16 days past due and had to be quarantined for the full 6 months. All the current horses were only quarantined for 45 days.

If it had been dogs, the state vet would have sought Euthanasia. The day he came out, we had been led to believe we would be burying 9 horses. They were allowed to be quarantined under STRICT supervision.

This little faux pas cost the business. Not too many parents want to take their child for lessons at the "rabid barn". 22 children were exposed to the horse that died. She was a lesson pony.

The immunity for most vaccinations lasts much longer than a single year. These numbers are from a study at the Univ. of Wisconsin. The immune response was determined by exposing the animal to the pathogen ...

Distempter 7-15 years
Adenovirus 7-9 years
Parvovirus 7 years
Rabies 3-7 years
Parainfluenza 3 years
Bordetella 9 months
Coronavirus Lifetime

from:
Duration of Immunity to Canine Vaccines: -- Dr. Ronald Schultz, Univ. Wisconsin-Madison

A conservative vaccination schedule from one vet

Dei wrote:"My issue with the proposed law begins with preventing vets from giving rabies shots more frequently than the current state law recommends. Vets *do* need the discretion to ask for more frequent inoculation depending on local conditions, for example during outbreaks. To have that banned by law is not in anyone's best interests. "

Uh. . .I didn't see anything that BANS vets from giving the shots more frequently. As I understand it, it just extends the state laws requiring when dogs have to be vaccinated. Did I miss something?

Vets can suggest and administer as many vaccinations as they want or are agreed to. Did I read it wrong, I couldn't get the link just now. . .I'll try later and see.