PDA

View Full Version : Tiger's rabies shot


---MIKE---
July 25th 06, 11:51 PM
When Tiger got his rabies shot on 7/10/06 he was about three weeks
overdue because of the vet not being able to fit him in sooner. He had
the MRAD-3 vaccine which SHOULD be good for three years but the vet's
office claims that the law says he must be re-vaccinated in one year
because he was overdue. NOT SO. I checked with the state vet. The
guidelines state that he is good for three years even though he was
overdue. I have a printout of the guidelines and I plan to present this
to the vet. I wouldn't mind the $10 for the shot but the additional $25
for the office visit plus the fact that Tiger hates to travel is a
factor. Another thing is the danger of a sarcoma at the injection site.


---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Buddy
July 26th 06, 01:33 AM
The danger of sarcoma is a big one - having lost a kitty to this.


---MIKE--- wrote:
> When Tiger got his rabies shot on 7/10/06 he was about three weeks
> overdue because of the vet not being able to fit him in sooner. He had
> the MRAD-3 vaccine which SHOULD be good for three years but the vet's
> office claims that the law says he must be re-vaccinated in one year
> because he was overdue. NOT SO. I checked with the state vet. The
> guidelines state that he is good for three years even though he was
> overdue. I have a printout of the guidelines and I plan to present this
> to the vet. I wouldn't mind the $10 for the shot but the additional $25
> for the office visit plus the fact that Tiger hates to travel is a
> factor. Another thing is the danger of a sarcoma at the injection site.
>
>
> ---MIKE---
> >>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
> >> (44 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Buddy
July 26th 06, 01:33 AM
The danger of sarcoma is a big one - having lost a kitty to this.


---MIKE--- wrote:
> When Tiger got his rabies shot on 7/10/06 he was about three weeks
> overdue because of the vet not being able to fit him in sooner. He had
> the MRAD-3 vaccine which SHOULD be good for three years but the vet's
> office claims that the law says he must be re-vaccinated in one year
> because he was overdue. NOT SO. I checked with the state vet. The
> guidelines state that he is good for three years even though he was
> overdue. I have a printout of the guidelines and I plan to present this
> to the vet. I wouldn't mind the $10 for the shot but the additional $25
> for the office visit plus the fact that Tiger hates to travel is a
> factor. Another thing is the danger of a sarcoma at the injection site.
>
>
> ---MIKE---
> >>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
> >> (44 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Ann
July 26th 06, 02:05 AM
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:51:02 -0400, ---MIKE--- wrote:

> When Tiger got his rabies shot on 7/10/06 he was about three weeks
> overdue because of the vet not being able to fit him in sooner. He had
> the MRAD-3 vaccine which SHOULD be good for three years but the vet's
> office claims that the law says he must be re-vaccinated in one year
> because he was overdue. NOT SO. I checked with the state vet. The
> guidelines state that he is good for three years even though he was
> overdue. I have a printout of the guidelines and I plan to present this
> to the vet. I wouldn't mind the $10 for the shot but the additional $25
> for the office visit plus the fact that Tiger hates to travel is a
> factor. Another thing is the danger of a sarcoma at the injection site.

Here is the website for the 2006 Compendium:
http://www.cste.org/pdffiles/2006/2006RabiesCompendium.pdf

The closest vaccine name I find is IMRAB-3 and the manufacturer does
specify that the second shot be within a year. Agreed that a few days
probably would make no difference at all, but your veterinarian would
leave himself open to legal and/or disciplinary action if he ignored the
manufacturer's instructions.

Who you would have to deal with in the event Tiger was possibly exposed to
a rabid animal would be the state (human) health authorities. They might
let it slide if it was an older car who had had three or four
inoculations and you'd been some late on one of the 3-year shots. But I
think they would be less likely to in your circumstance. Essentially, what
you'd be getting by taking Tiger in within a year would be peace of mind.
(Are there no public rabies inoculation clinics in your area?)

Cheryl
July 26th 06, 02:51 AM
On Tue 25 Jul 2006 06:51:02p, ---MIKE--- wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav
):

> When Tiger got his rabies shot on 7/10/06 he was about three
> weeks overdue because of the vet not being able to fit him in
> sooner. He had the MRAD-3 vaccine which SHOULD be good for
> three years but the vet's office claims that the law says he
> must be re-vaccinated in one year because he was overdue. NOT
> SO. I checked with the state vet. The guidelines state that he
> is good for three years even though he was overdue. I have a
> printout of the guidelines and I plan to present this to the
> vet. I wouldn't mind the $10 for the shot but the additional
> $25 for the office visit plus the fact that Tiger hates to
> travel is a factor. Another thing is the danger of a sarcoma at
> the injection site.
>
Mike, the vet you use is a money hungry idiot. I'm sorry to say
that if up until now everything has been ok, but to suggest that
the schedule needs to be changed just because of a 3 week lapse is
crazy. My cats have never had shots done exactly on time,
depending on my own schedule, and if nothing else needs checking.
I do tend to keep the yearly's within a month or two, but a window
like your vet mentioned isn't always practical, and I can't believe
it's the "law".


--
Cheryl

Ann
July 26th 06, 03:53 AM
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 01:51:56 +0000, Cheryl wrote:

> On Tue 25 Jul 2006 06:51:02p, ---MIKE--- wrote in
> rec.pets.cats.health+behav
> ):
>
>> When Tiger got his rabies shot on 7/10/06 he was about three weeks
>> overdue because of the vet not being able to fit him in sooner. He had
>> the MRAD-3 vaccine which SHOULD be good for three years but the vet's
>> office claims that the law says he must be re-vaccinated in one year
>> because he was overdue. NOT SO. I checked with the state vet. The
>> guidelines state that he is good for three years even though he was
>> overdue. I have a printout of the guidelines and I plan to present
>> this to the vet. I wouldn't mind the $10 for the shot but the
>> additional $25 for the office visit plus the fact that Tiger hates to
>> travel is a factor. Another thing is the danger of a sarcoma at the
>> injection site.
>>
> Mike, the vet you use is a money hungry idiot. I'm sorry to say that if
> up until now everything has been ok, but to suggest that the schedule
> needs to be changed just because of a 3 week lapse is crazy. My cats
> have never had shots done exactly on time, depending on my own schedule,
> and if nothing else needs checking. I do tend to keep the yearly's
> within a month or two, but a window like your vet mentioned isn't always
> practical, and I can't believe it's the "law".

Rabies is a different deal; the objective (of requiring the immunization)
is to protect human health. If there is possibility of a cat (or dog)
having been exposed and then having contact with humans, the penalty for
the animal not having an up-to-date immunization is severe. The test for
rabies exposure requires killing it and testing the brain tissue; there is
no "live test". Some states may offer the option of months of quarantine.
Because of this experience in New Hampshire, I wouldn't expect the
authorities to be lenient in interpreting the regulations:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00038110.htm

Agreed that the veterinarian should not be charging the $25 office visit
fee for a rabies shot. Where I live, the veterinarian where I have had
rabies immunizations done waives the office visit fee. The rabies
vaccine is not expensive so a veterinarian can "break even" on a $10
immunization fee. The only way that could be a "loss" would be if the
veterinarian is 100% booked and he/she would be turning away an office
visit customer.

Ann
July 26th 06, 05:03 PM
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:22:34 -0400, ---MIKE--- wrote:

> Ann, you are way off base. Tiger is 7 years old and has always had his
> rabies shots on time. A three week lapse is nothing and the state
> agrees, Besides, he is an inside only cat.

Reread what I wrote: "Who you would have to deal with in the event Tiger
was possibly exposed to a rabid animal would be the state (human) health
authorities. They might let it slide if it was an older car who had had
three or four inoculations and you'd been some late on one of the 3-year
shots."

And: "Agreed that a few days probably would make no difference at all, but
your veterinarian would leave himself open to legal and/or disciplinary
action if he ignored the manufacturer's instructions."

You didn't mention that it was a 3-yr shot that you were late on and I
incorrectly assumed it was a 1-yr. But, I stand by what I wrote. Rabies
is a disease that, imo, causes fear out of proportion to the risk. I
think my posts were clear that the "extra" shot would be insurance against
public/government over-reaction. Also, if your veterinarian did
administer a 3-yr vaccine this time and provided you with a copy of the
required certificate, I don't understand what your complaint is.

> Besides, he is an inside only cat.

In my state, cats that spend any time inside are the ones that are
required to have a rabies vaccination. The rabies regulations are to
protect humans. Besides which (1) bats get into houses and (2) there is
no practical way to prove that a cat has been inside only. New Hampshire
RSA 436.100 makes no mention of an exemption for inside only cats.

---MIKE---
July 26th 06, 11:20 PM
Ann, If you would reread the original post you would see that I actually
talked to the New Hampshire State vet (Dr. Stephen Crawford) and he told
me that the state guidelines stated that as long as the cat had the
three year vaccine (IMRAD-3), he would be good for three years EVEN
THOUGH HE WAS OVERDUE at the time of the vaccination. He also provided
me with the documentation on this. Give it a rest.


---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44 15' N - Elevation 1580')

Ann
July 27th 06, 01:13 AM
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:20:12 -0400, ---MIKE--- wrote:

> Ann, If you would reread the original post you would see that I actually
> talked to the New Hampshire State vet (Dr. Stephen Crawford) and he told
> me that the state guidelines stated that as long as the cat had the
> three year vaccine (IMRAD-3), he would be good for three years EVEN
> THOUGH HE WAS OVERDUE at the time of the vaccination. He also provided
> me with the documentation on this. Give it a rest.

Well, actually you wrote that he had gotten "MRAD-3" ... and never did
reply to my question as to whether you meant IMRAB-3.

(My second post wasn't "addressed" to you; it was a reply to (and threaded
to) a post made by someone else. Of course you were free to reply to it,
but it's pkb to complain about me not being willing to "Give it a rest.")

yngver
July 27th 06, 11:02 PM
wrote:
> (---MIKE---) wrote in news:17211-44C7507A-6
> @storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net:
>
> > Ann, you are way off base. Tiger is 7 years old and has always had his
> > rabies shots on time. A three week lapse is nothing and the state
> > agrees, Besides, he is an inside only cat.
>
> Are there any other animals he comes into contact with?
> Some vets will advise that the rabies shots aren't necessary for an indoor
> cat who's the only animal in an apartment or house.

State and/or municipal rabies laws over-rule what the vet might think
about which animal needs rabies shots.
-yngver

T
July 28th 06, 12:26 AM
In article >,
says...
> Ann > wrote in news:pan.2006.07.26.15.04.29.254351
> @epix.net:
>
> > In my state, cats that spend any time inside are the ones that are
> > required to have a rabies vaccination. The rabies regulations are to
> > protect humans. Besides which (1) bats get into houses and (2) there is
> > no practical way to prove that a cat has been inside only. New Hampshire
> > RSA 436.100 makes no mention of an exemption for inside only cats.
> >
> >
>
> What do you think about cats who spend all their time in apartments with no
> other animals around (unless the visit to the vet is counted). Some vets
> even think the booster shots are superfluous in this environment.

The problem is that even in the best of places there are still rabies
vectors. Be it rodentia, bats, insect, etc. there's almost always a
transmission route.

Ann
July 28th 06, 12:29 AM
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:54:02 -0500, wilbur wrote:

> Ann > wrote in news:pan.2006.07.26.15.04.29.254351
> @epix.net:
>
>> In my state, cats that spend any time inside are the ones that are
>> required to have a rabies vaccination. The rabies regulations are to
>> protect humans. Besides which (1) bats get into houses and (2) there is
>> no practical way to prove that a cat has been inside only. New Hampshire
>> RSA 436.100 makes no mention of an exemption for inside only cats.

> What do you think about cats who spend all their time in apartments with no
> other animals around (unless the visit to the vet is counted). Some vets
> even think the booster shots are superfluous in this environment.

What I think doesn't matter; the laws of my state do if I want to protect
a cat I own.