National Feral Cat Day 2012 was memorable for a number of reasons—including the great honor of being named a Catster Hero. Many thanks to Catster news editor (and founder of the Paws and Effect blog) JaneA Kelley, who, well… made me look heroic.
It’s National Feral Cat Day—what better occasion to recognize some of the positive developments in feral cat/TNR advocacy I’ve observed over the past two-and-a-half years since launching Vox Felina?
National Feral Cat Day debuted in 2001, created by Alley Cat Allies “to raise awareness about feral cats, promote Trap-Neuter-Return, and recognize the millions of compassionate Americans who care for them.” As of yesterday, ACA had registered 368 events for this year’s celebration, and they were still hearing from activists eager to get on board. All 50 states are represented, and events are going on in other countries as well.
Nearly 300 groups applied for National Feral Cat Day Community Impact Awards; 22 winners received $1,000 each, while 16 runner-ups received $500 each. For additional details, check out the ACA website.
It was just about two years ago that Best Friends (wisely!) hired Laura Nirenberg as legislative attorney for their Focus on Felines campaign. I’m honored to be joining Laura, along with Lisa Tudor, Director of Development and Outreach for the Foundation Against Companion-Animal Euthanasia (FACE), at the upcoming No More Homeless Pets Conference as we present Taking It to the Street (Cats): Grassroots Advocacy for Community Cats.
Another reason I’m looking forward to this year’s conference: meeting Katie Lisnik, director of cat protection and policy for HSUS. This, of course, was the position that Michael Hutchins, former executive director/CEO of The Wildlife Society, referred to as “wild bird executioner” in his August 16, 2011 blog post. While Katie and I have yet to officially meet, it’s difficult not to like—automatically—anybody whose hiring got Hutchins so agitated.
Although TNR is still not endorsed by the entire animal control community, there seems to be a significant shift in that direction at the National Animal Control Association. The September/October 2011 issue of NACA News, for example, featured an article by Lynne Achterberg, founding board member of Santa Cruz, California’s Project Purr, highlighting the benefits of TNR. In “Paradigm Shift: Return to Field,” Achterberg explained that for communities interested in increasing their shelters’ live release rates, “TNR and inclusion of feral cats is key.”
In the January/February 2012 issue, NACA president Todd Stosuy cited TNR as one “proactive animal program” that “can help reduce the number of animals coming into the shelter, and thus reduce euthanasia in the long-run.”
It’s no surprise, really, that people support TNR over lethal control methods—we are, after all, a nation of animal lovers. But it’s another thing for TNR to become a more integrated part of the culture. Here, too, there’s good news to report.
Witness, for example, two recent books on the subject: Taming Me: Memoir of a Clever Island Cat (released today to correspond with NFCD, and which I reviewed for Moderncat) and Fairminded Fran and the Three Small Black Community Cats.
And it seems the rest of the world has figured out what some of us have known for a while now: it’s hip to be tipped. Check out the specially-designed pillowcases and tote bags by Xenotees (whose founder is donating all related profits to Four The Paws, a Philadelphia area rescue). Additional “ear-tipped” items are being featured today at Moderncat (where, by the way, you can get in on an NFCD giveaway).
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t also acknowledge my many readers. I know from the e-mail I receive, and comments posted on the Vox Felina Facebook page, of your tireless support for TNR, and feral cats in general. “Regular folks” concerned for the welfare of feral, stray, and abandoned cats who are engaging their government officials and neighbors; “freelance” colony caregivers sharing their hard-won knowledge with others; and various well-established organizations shaping policy at the state and national level—I am humbled by your commitment and compassion.
Thank you for your support, and for all that you do on behalf of the cats!
A recently published paper describing free-roaming cats as “a significant public health threat” fails to deliver convincing evidence. In fact, the very work the authors cite undermines, time and time again, their claims.
“Domestic cats are a potential source of numerous infectious disease agents,” write Rick Gerhold and David Jessup, in their paper, “Zoonotic Diseases Associated with Free-Roaming Cats,” published online in July by the journal Zoonoses Public Health (and to be included in an upcoming print edition).
“However, many of these diseases are controlled in cats belonging to responsible owners through routine veterinary care, proper vaccination regimens and parasite chemotherapy. Free-roaming cats often lack the necessary preventative care to control these diseases and consequently pose a potential health threat to other domestic animals, wildlife and humans.” [1]
Just how much of a threat do these cats pose?
Gerhold and Jessup would have us believe that the risks are high and the consequences dire. A careful reading of their paper, however, reveals the authors’ tendency to cherry-pick some studies and misrepresent others. And, occasionally, simply get their facts wrong.*
All of which raises serious questions about Gerhold and Jessup’s case against free-roaming cats. Read more
My debut post, “The real record on feral cats and public health,” appeared on the Petfinder blog yesterday. Vox Felina readers can expect an in-depth (i.e., ~4,000 words) version very soon.
Many thanks to the good folks at Discovery Communications (who are proving to be a real pleasure to work with) for the opportunity. I look forward to many more posts in the future. (Indeed, another is just around the corner!)
Wednesday afternoon, the Alabama State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners rejected proposed Rule No. 930-X-1-.39 (in a unanimous vote, apparently), thus allowing the state’s four non-profit spay/neuter clinics to remain open.
According to a story in The Anniston Star, “board members… faced a crowd of about 100 animal advocates and shelter volunteers” at yesterday’s hearing.
“The crowd, overwhelmingly composed of people who opposed the measure, cheered as more than a dozen people spoke against the rule change. Only one speaker dissented from the crowd.”
As I mentioned in Wednesday’s post, this decision could have set a dangerous precedent had it gone the other way. Across the country, veterinarians working in low-cost clinics might have been accused of “perpetrating cruelty on the very animals they claim they are protecting,” to use the words of Eric R. Lewis, Communications Officer for the Alabama Veterinary Practice Owners Association, the organization behind Rule No. 930-X-1-.39.
But perhaps this case has set another kind of precedent. Read more
“Analysis of Maddie’s Fund program results show that low-cost spay/neuter programs are effective at raising total community spay/neuter levels (i.e., they do not merely cause substitution in source of spay/neuter procedures).”
— Joshua M. Frank and Pamela L. Carlisle-Frank, Ecological Economics (2007)
Later today, the Alabama State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners is scheduled, as veterinarian Eric R. Lewis, Communications Officer for the Alabama Veterinary Practice Owners Association, put it in a recent e-mail alert, “to clarify the definitions of what a practice owner is in the state.” Which probably sounds like nothing more than a little housekeeping for the board, right?
In fact, the decision may well shut down the four low-cost non-profit spay/neuter clinics in the state.* Worse, it may set a disastrous precedent for other states.
So, what’s going on in Alabama? Read more
For a limited time only—donate $10 or more and receive Alley Cat Allies’ 15-month calendar full of color photos (submitted by ACA supporters) and helpful cat care tips. Orders must be placed before midnight October 11th.
Please allow approximately 2–3 weeks for delivery.
I don’t imagine USA Today has ever been accused of producing substantive journalism. And, judging from a worthless he-said/she-said-we-report-you-decide story in yesterday’s edition, that’s not likely to change anytime soon.
OK, not worthless, exactly. After all, American Bird Conservancy president George Fenwick finally went on record calling for the killing of free-roaming cats: “I detest the killing of cats and dogs or anything else. But this is out of control, and there may be no other answer.” [1]
How many cats are we talking about? Fenwick’s not saying. And reporter Chuck Raasch does readers no favors when he confuses free-roaming cats and feral cats (“Estimates of the U.S. feral cat population range from a few million to 125 million, with the Humane Society saying 50 million.”)
And in a move that’s become popular among TNR opponents,* Fenwick plays the “powerful cat lobby” card: “he worries his side is ‘out-emotioned’ and out-organized.” [1] It would, I think, be more accurate to say that “his side” has neither the science nor public opinion working in their favor. Read more
National Feral Cat Day is just around the corner—October 16th. And to mark the occasion, Tomahawk Live Trap and Tru-Catch are offering special discounts.
For additional information, please check out Alley Cat Allies’ NFCD 2012 page.
Culex quinquefasciatus mosquito. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons and CDC/Jim Gathany.“This is a significant study that documents serious wildlife and public health issues associated with 125 million outdoor cats in the United States,” explained the American Bird Conservancy’s vice president for conservation advocacy, Darin Schroeder, in a September 18 press release. [1] Schroeder was referring to a paper (“a review of the various diseases of free-roaming cats and the public health implications associated with the cat populations,” [2] as the authors themselves describe it, not a study) published online in July by the journal Zoonoses Public Health (and to be included in an upcoming print edition).
“The information in this review,” explain Rick Gerhold and David Jessup, the paper’s authors, “highlights the serious public health diseases associated with free-roaming cats and underscores the need for increased public health attention directed towards free-roaming cats.” [2]
I’ll save my critique of “Zoonotic Diseases Associated with Free-Roaming Cats” for next time. And let’s set aside for the moment those alleged wildlife impacts, and ABC’s dubious estimate of the number of outdoor cats in this country. What about ABC’s apparent concern for those “serious public health diseases”? Read more
Is it possible I’ve been banned from posting comments on the Mother Jones website—the online home of “smart, fearless journalism”? It certainly looks that way.
Despite several attempts throughout the day Wednesday, my response to senior editor Kiera Butler’s “Kitties, Rabies, the Plague, and You” has yet to appear in the comments. Meanwhile, the conversation continues. Initially, I attributed my virtual absence to a technical problem. After repeated attempts (using two or three different applications to log on), however, I think I have to conclude that my comment is simply not being approved. And will not be approved.
I can’t imagine my response violates MoJo’s comment policy, especially after reading some of the others that have been posted. Could it be the magazine didn’t like being the recipient of the 2011 Trap Liner Award in recognition of its “tragic failure of journalistic integrity while fueling—intentionally or not—the witch-hunt against feral cats”? (This, of course, was in “honor” of Butler’s “Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!,” which was later renamed—perhaps in response to some 1,645 comments, including mine—“Are Cats Bad for the Environment?”)
Did somebody at the magazine even notice? Who knows. Perhaps this really is just a tech issue. In any case, here’s my comment:
Given Butler’s previous contribution to the “never-ending war between cat people and bird people,” I’m not surprised she once again swallowed the American Bird Conservancy’s story in one gulp. It’s a shame—the same week Mother Jones made national news with its good old-fashioned hard-hitting journalism, Butler’s reprinting sensationalist press releases.
Had she done even a little bit of research, she would realize that ABC’s claims are just the same old misrepresentations and scaremongering. Take rabies, for example. In 2008, there were 294 cases reported in cats, compared to 75 cases in dogs. But let’s put that into context (using the very same report of CDC data that ABC used): 93 percent of cases were in wildlife; cats made up just 4.3 percent of rabies cases overall.
And, as the report makes clear, reports of rabies cases—such as those typically provided by the CDC—are not an accurate measure of overall infection rates. “Further, because of differences in protocols and submission rates among species and states, comparison of percentages of animals with positive results between species or states is inappropriate.” [1] Unfortunately, such comparisons are commonplace among TNR opponents eager to exaggerate the risk of rabies.
Actually, you’ve got a much better chance of being killed by lightning—not just struck, but killed by lightning. Data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration indicate that between 1959 and 2011, 3,947 people in the U.S. were killed by lightning.
That’s roughly 75 deaths annually. [2] Due to lightning strikes.
And Butler overlooks the obvious (again): What ABC is proposing is a ban on TNR—which means tens of millions of unsterilized and unvaccinated cats. How exactly is that supposed to benefit wildlife and public health? It’s an obvious question to ask, but one that apparently never occurred to Butler.
Next time I get one of Mother Jones’ e-mail pleas for donations, I think I’ll forward it to Darin Schroeder at ABC. They should at least have to pay their stooges.
So, did I go too far?
Literature Cited
1. Blanton, J.D., et al., “Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2008.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2009. 235(6): p. 676–689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19751163
www.avma.org/avmacollections/rabies/javma_235_6_676.pdf
2. Holle, R., Lightning Fatalities by State, 1959–2011. 2012, Vaisala: Tucson, AZ. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/stats/59-11_fatalities_rates.pdf
Just two more days to take advantage of the early-bird registration rate of $275!
And Vox Felina readers can save an additional $25 by entering the discount code “Wolf.” Simply visit the conference website, and click on “Register Now.” (When asked for payment information, be sure to use your discount code.)
Among this year’s speakers are Jackson Galaxy, star of My Cat From Hell and author of Cat Daddy, Ellen Jefferson, executive director of Austin Pets Alive!, Christi Metropole, founder and executive director of Stray Cat Alliance, and Becky Robinson, co-founder and president of Alley Cat Allies.
And, for those hard-core attendees who stick around until Sunday…
Laura Nirenberg, legislative analyst for Best Friends’ Focus on Felines campaign, Lisa Tudor, Director of Development and Outreach, the Foundation Against Companion-Animal Euthanasia (FACE), and I will be presenting Taking It to the Street (Cats): Grassroots Advocacy for Community Cats Sunday morning. (Apologies in advance to those who will be staying out too late Saturday night!)
Hope to see you there!
When: October 25–28, 2012
Where: Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas
Cost: $275 early-bird rate ($325 after September 19)
For updates and additional information, check out the conference Facebook page. Questions? conferences@bestfriends.org.
Some unsettling news coming out of the 52nd annual Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) meeting on Tuesday: a recently-discovered drug-resistant “superbug” has been found in a domestic cat—the first instance of the infection in a pet. Few details are available at this time, including the location of the cat and people involved. It’s also not clear, according to the story reported by Maryn McKenna for Wired Science Blogs, “whether the cat passed NDM-1 on to its family or, conversely, whether the family were responsible for giving the bug to their pet.”
Dubbed the “Indian Superbug” (the acronym NDM-1 is derived from New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase) because of its ties to Southeast Asia, explains McKenna, NDM-1 is “actually a gene which encodes an enzyme which confers resistance to almost all known antibiotics.”
“The NDM-1 story has been long and contentious… but from the first, two things have been clear. However the political battles fall out, medicine views the emergence of this gene as a catastrophe, because it edges organisms to the brink of being completely non-responsive to antibiotics, as untreatable as if the infections were contracted before the antibiotic era began. And because the gene resides in organisms that happily live in the gut without causing symptoms, NDM-1 has been a hidden catastrophe, crossing borders and entering hospitals without ever being detected.” [1]
It’s far too soon to predict how significant a “catastrophe” NDM-1 might be for pets, their guardians, and caregivers remains to be seen. It’s not difficult to imagine, however, that NDM-1 will soon become—despite, or perhaps because of, how little is currently known about it—one more “concern” to be exploited by TNR opponents more interested in scaremongering than in public health.
Literature Cited
1. McKenna, M. (2012) “Superbug” NDM-1 Found In US Cat (ICAAC 3). Wired Science Blogs/Superbug http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/09/ndm-icaac-3
A petition has been started (by a Vox Felina reader, I’m pleased to report!) demanding that ABC News revisit the free-roaming cat issue with a little more journalistic rigor, as a follow-up to their one-sided “Kitty Cam Killers” segment on 20/20 Friday evening.
In less than 48 hours, the petition has received nearly 500 signatures and several comments. If you aren’t among those who have already signed, I encourage you to do so. If you have, please help spread the word by e-mailing to others, and sharing via social media.
I don’t know how much influence we’ll have with ABC News—but we know darn well what to expect if we do nothing.
“There’s hostility to lying, and there should be.” —Bob Woodward
With just six minutes and 34 seconds to play, I don’t imagine readers got very far with their bingo cards during Friday night’s episode of 20/20 (“The Camera Never Lies: Kitty Cam Killers”). (My apologies for not including Killing Spree—I should have seen that one coming.) It was clear, though, from the footage of George Fenwick’s interview, that things could have played out very differently—the president of the American Bird Conservancy had his talking points down. Read more
Earlier this week, the American Bird Conservancy announced to eNewsletter subscribers that ABC president George Fenwick will be appearing on ABC News’ 20/20 tonight “in a segment about domestic cat predation on birds and other wildlife.”
“The program was prompted by an August American Bird Conservancy news release on a University of Georgia and National Geographic study of house cats that were allowed to roam outdoors. The activities of the cats were recorded using small video cameras attached to the cats’ collars, leading to some startling results. The issue has recently been covered by almost 100 newspapers nationwide as well as by CNN, CBS and USA Today. Members of that study team will also appear on Friday’s program.”
As I pointed out the day that news release was issued, it was an attempt at persuasion not through truth and credibility, but through blunt force—through nothing more than amplification and repetition.
I suspect Fenwick’s appearance on 20/20 will be no different. He and his colleagues at ABC have been lying about the impacts of free-roaming cats for at least 15 years now; I don’t imagine him rediscovering his integrity just when he’s got a television audience eager to hear all about, as 20/20 suggests in its segment title, the “Cutest Serial Killer You’ll Ever Meet.”
After all, some of the people tuning in might actually believe Fenwick. Especially if, as is typical of the mainstream media, the 20/20 team takes his indefensible claims at face value—never bothering with even the most obvious follow-up questions.
I am curious, though, to see if Kerrie Anne Loyd is among study team members to be interviewed. And, more to the point, which Kerrie Anne Loyd—the one who told CBS Atlanta, “Cats aren’t as bad as biologists thought”? That would be rather awkward, wouldn’t it?
In any case, Vox Felina readers will be prepared, bingo cards in hand. Unlike the original, however, this set of cards was designed to make winning virtually impossible. Look carefully at the cards and you’ll see that some have a space marked Five Birds, for example. Not likely Fenwick’s going to bring up the fact that only five birds were killed over the course of Loyd’s study (in which 55 cats contributed 2,000 hours of video). Or that they were, as seems to be the case, Common Species.
You get the idea. The downloadable PDF includes four bingo cards and 120 chips.
Whether you actually play along or not, don’t forget to leave a comment on the 20/20 website letting them know what you thought of the show.
Complaining of the impacts of free-roaming cats on wildlife and the environment, along with a range of public health threats, dozens of veterinarians in Hillsborough County, Florida, have banded together to fight TNR. Evidence suggests, however, that their real concern has nothing to do with the community, native wildlife, or, indeed, with cats. What the Hillsborough Animal Health Foundation is most interested in protecting, it seems, is the business interests of its members.
In Part 5 of this five-part series, I discuss the apparent motives for HAHF’s recent campaign against TNR.
“All of the current issues have arisen from the No Kill movement that attempted to incorporate some radical changes to our county shelter without following the normal governmental process,” explained Don Thompson, executive director of HAHF, in a recent e-mail.
“A big part of the 11-point plan (point 1) is county-endorsed and -funded TNR—and initially, that was going to happen without public input. We objected, and the process is now being properly engaged… We are not in favor of county funded or supported TNR, for all the reasons listed on our page.”
Thompson is referring to a series of events following Nathan Winograd’s February visit to Tampa, including the establishment of a task force, a move Ian Hallett, director of Hillsborough County Animal Services, describes in an August 7th memo to “Animal Advisory Committee Members” and “Registered Voters of Hillsborough County”: Read more
Complaining of the impacts of free-roaming cats on wildlife and the environment, along with a range of public health threats, dozens of veterinarians in Hillsborough County, Florida, have banded together to fight TNR. Evidence suggests, however, that their real concern has nothing to do with the community, native wildlife, or, indeed, with cats. What the Hillsborough Animal Health Foundation is most interested in protecting, it seems, is the business interests of its members.
In Part 4 of this five-part series, I look at Hillsborough County Animal Services as the agency struggles to move from a 35 percent live-release rate to “no-kill” status—a task made all the more difficult by HAHF’s campaign against TNR.
As I like to tell anybody who will listen, there’s no evidence whatsoever that we’re going to kill our way out of the “feral cat problem.” While it may be impossible to prove a negative, Hillsborough County, Florida, does make for a compelling case study.
A Grim Past
“Even though it is Florida’s fourth-largest county,” explains Francis Hamilton, Associate Professor of Management at Eckerd College, in his 2010 paper describing “the development and ongoing process of a social change effort and collaboration” in Hillsborough County, “it has euthanized more animals than any other county in the state.”
“From 1996 to 2008, Hillsborough County Animal Services (HCAS), the county’s public shelter, euthanized about 82 percent (over 306,000) of its animal intake. In calendar year 2005, 73 percent of dogs entering the shelter were euthanized, as were 92 percent of cats.” [1]
In February 2007, Hillsborough County became one of four communities in the country targeted that year by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals as part of its Mission: Orange initiative. A team of outside consultants was deployed, tasked with “report[ing] on current programs” and “recommend[ing] areas ripe for change which could increase adoptions, while reducing shelter intake and euthanasia.” ASPCA committed $200,000 “to be invested in the area’s animal welfare community for each of the next three years.” [2] Read more
Complaining of the impacts of free-roaming cats on wildlife and the environment, along with a range of public health threats, dozens of veterinarians in Hillsborough County, Florida, have banded together to fight TNR. Evidence suggests, however, that their real concern has nothing to do with the community, native wildlife, or, indeed, with cats. What the Hillsborough Animal Health Foundation is most interested in protecting, it seems, is the business interests of its members.
In Part 3 of this five-part series, I discuss some of the science surrounding Toxoplasma gondii, and challenge HAHF’s claim that TNR increases the exposure risk for toxoplasmosis.
Cats and Toxoplasma gondii
As recently as last week, the Hillsborough Animal Health Foundation was insisting that cats are the only source of Toxoplasma gondii—essentially that without cats, there’s no toxoplasmosis. It looks like they’ve done some editing in the past few days, and the particular statement I’m recalling has been removed.
In any case, it’s not quite that simple. Read more
Complaining of the impacts of free-roaming cats on wildlife and the environment, along with a range of public health threats, dozens of veterinarians in Hillsborough County, Florida, have banded together to fight TNR. Evidence suggests, however, that their real concern has nothing to do with the community, native wildlife, or, indeed, with cats. What the Hillsborough Animal Health Foundation is most interested in protecting, it seems, is the business interests of its members.
In Part 2 of this five-part series, I use Florida Department of Heath data for rabies cases (in animals) and possible rabies exposures (humans) to challenge HAHF’s claim that free-roaming cats pose a significant rabies threat.
The “trouble with trap-neuter-re(abandon!),” as the Hillsborough Animal Health Foundation explains on its website, “is simply stated by the executive summary of the 2012 Florida Department of Health Rabies Guide.”
“The concept of managing free-roaming/feral domestic cats (Felis catus) is not tenable on public health grounds because of the persistent threat posed to communities from injury and disease. While the risk for disease transmission from cats to people is generally low when these animals are maintained indoors and routinely cared for, free-roaming cats pose a continuous concern to communities. Children are among the highest risk for disease transmission from these cats.” [1]
“Veterinarians are legally required to follow the Rabies Guide,” argues HAHF. “As a result, we are gravely concerned about Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR), and the implications of any such county funded or endorsed program.”
But if TNR truly increases the risk of rabies exposure, what difference does it make where the funding comes from? (I’ll get into that in Part 5.)
In any case, veterinarians are legally required to follow the law.
And while the Rabies Guide (PDF), issued by the Florida Department of Health, cites a variety of statutes, codes, and ordinances—in addition to multiple references to the “legislative authority” granted the Florida DOH—it’s curious that the publication doesn’t actually refer to any law prohibiting “the concept of managing free-roaming/feral domestic cats.” (In fact, the entire section covering free-roaming cats is of such poor quality—claims directly contradicting CDC data and reports, for example, and its failure to acknowledge the potential for TNR to provide a rabies barrier between wildlife and humans [2]—one wonders about the motivation of its authors. Perhaps I’ll tackle this in a future post.)
Humans (Possibly) Exposed to Rabies
“More than 2,000 people were exposed to rabid or potentially rabid animals in Florida in 2010,” explains HAHF. “This represents a 46 percent increase over the five-year average, and cats represented 25 percent of the incidents.” In fact, the increase was—according to the very report HAHF cites—actually 41.33 percent, with cats representing 24 percent of “exposed persons for whom treatment was recommended.” [3] But that’s quibbling, I suppose.
What’s far more interesting is how HAHF chose to “edit” their summary of the Florida DOH report, which is worth quoting at length:
“In 2001, reporting of animal encounters for which rabies post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is recommended was initiated. Rabies PEP is recommended when an individual is bitten, scratched, or has mucous membrane or fresh wound contact with the saliva or nervous tissue of a laboratory-confirmed rabid animal, or a suspected rabid animal that is not available for testing. The annual incidence of exposures PEP is recommended has increased since case reporting was initiated. In 2010, the incidence rate was up 41.33 percent over the previous five-year average although the number of confirmed rabid animals decreased in 2010 compared to 2009. This increase in PEP may be due to improved reporting, increased exposures to possible rabid animals, increased inappropriate or unnecessary use of PEP, or a combination of factors. Reductions in state and local resources may contribute to increases in inappropriate or unnecessary use of PEP by decreasing resources to investigate animal exposures and confirm animal health status, and by reducing county health department staff time to provide regular rabies PEP education for health care providers.” [3, emphasis mine]
(As I pointed out in my previous post, HAHF may very well be contributing to the “increased inappropriate or unnecessary use of PEP” with all their scaremongering.)
Suddenly, what seems like a dramatic uptick in rabies exposure—one in which HAHF suggests cats played a key role—looks more like what it is: the result of several poorly understood (and, in some cases, competing) factors. Puzzling, but hardly the public health threat suggested by HAHF.
Interestingly, dogs were implicated in 46 percent of PEP incidents, nearly twice as many as were cats. And, 75 percent of the owned animals (which made up 20 percent of the total) involved in the 2,114 exposures that occurred in 2010 were pet dogs. [3] My point is not to shift attention to dogs, but simply to add a little perspective. One would expect HAHF—as members of the veterinarian community concerned for “our precious children”—to at least acknowledge the point.
Instead, HAHF quotes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “In 2009, rabies cases among cats increased for the second consecutive year. Three times more rabid cats were reported than rabid dogs.” Which is true—but also misleading. As a report of CDC data makes clear: “differences in protocols and submission rates among species and states [make] comparison of percentages of animals with positive results between species or states… inappropriate.” [4]
In other words, the rabies surveillance data at the heart of all these claims are not an accurate reflection of rabies prevalence in the population of any particular species. The low numbers for bobcats in Florida (just 44 across 20 years), for example, are likely a reflection of this cat’s relatively few encounters with humans as much as anything else.
Some additional perspective: since 1960, only two cases of human rabies in the U.S. have been attributed to cats. [5]
The Risks to Children
Contrary to the claims made in the Florida DOH Rabies Guide (“Children are among the highest risk for disease transmission from [free-roaming] cats.”) and on the HAHF website (“a large burden of the [public health] risk lies against our precious children!”), Florida DOH data suggest that the only age group less likely to be exposed to rabies is adults 55 and older. According to the 2010 Florida Morbidity Statistics Report (from which the chart below was taken):
“The average age of the victim for the 2,114 cases reported in 2010 was 37 years, with a range from under one year to 110 years of age. The highest incidence was seen in individuals aged between 20 and 24 years, but incidence was similar for ages 15 to 19 and 45 to 54 years. There were some variations in age based on the type of animal involved. Average age for those recommended to receive PEP who were exposed to dogs was 32 years; cats, 41 years; and wildlife, 43 years.” [3, emphasis mine]
Rabid Animals
It’s perfectly understandable for public health officials to focus on possible exposure and PEP incidents—but it’s also worth looking at the data documenting confirmed cases of rabid animals in Florida and Hillsborough County. (Tampa Bay Online has developed a handy interactive state map of 2006–09 rabies cases.) Doing so reveals a steady downward trend since the mid-1990s* at both the state [6] and county levels, [7] as indicated in the graphs below.
The trend is even more striking when one considers Florida’s population explosion over the same period, from 12,937,926 in 1990 to 18,801,311 in 2010, an increase of 45 percent. More people means more pets—as well as the kinds of interactions with wildlife that lead to increased surveillance reporting.
Now, I’m not prepared to attribute the notable downturn in rabies cases—in cats and in animals overall—to TNR. There are simply too many factors involved. On the other hand, the trend challenges the assertion made by HAHF (and the Florida DOH in its Rabies Guide) that TNR—which has become increasingly popular over the past 20 years—leads to an increased risk of rabies exposure.
• • •
*The data suggest that the sharp increase during the early 1990s was due to an increase in rabies cases among the state’s raccoon population.
Coming up:
• Part 3: Toxoplasmosis prevalence
• Part 4: Hillsborough County Animal Services: Past, Present, and Future
• Part 5: Would the real HAHF please stand up?
Literature Cited
1. n.a., Rabies Prevention and Control in Florida, 2012. 2012, Florida Department of Health: Tallahassee, FL. www.myfloridaeh.com/newsroom/brochures/rabiesguide2012.pdf
2. Clifton, M. (2010). How to introduce neuter/return & make it work. Animal People, pp. 3–4, from http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/10/4/April10.htm
3. n.a., 2010 Florida Morbidity Statistics Report. 2011, Florida Department of Health, Division of Disease Control, Bureau of Epidemiology: Tallahassee, FL. http://www.doh.state.fl.us/disease_ctrl/epi/Morbidity_Report/2010/2010_AMR.pdf
4. Blanton, J.D., et al., “Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2008.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2009. 235(6): p. 676–689. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19751163
www.avma.org/avmacollections/rabies/javma_235_6_676.pdf
5. n.a., “Recovery of a Patient from Clinical Rabies—California, 2011.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2012. 61(4): p. 61–64. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6104a1.htm
6. n.a., 20 Year Animal Rabies Summary by Species (1991–2010) 2011, Florida Department of Health: Tallahassee, FL. http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/medicine/rabies/Data/2010/Rabies20YrTable91_10.pdf
7. n.a. Rabies Surveillance: Charts, Maps, and Graphs. 2006 [cited 2012 August 25]. http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Disease_ctrl/epi/rabies/chart.html.