New PETs rules

Re: New PETs rules

Rob Loxley — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:45:46 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]On a slightly different but related note- why don't DEFRA make the minimal age an animal can be vaccinated at for rabies an exact figure eg 12 weeks rather than 3 calendar months.[/quote]

Maybe because at the border post it's very quick to check the rabies vacc was >3mo after birth, and that it is now 6 months since the successful blood test, rather than counting days/weeks on a calender?

Re: New PETs rules

Julian Earl — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:44:50 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

If you meant born 10/4/11 and vaccinated 9/7/11 then that is actually 3 calendar months. 10/4/11 to 10/7/11 is three calendar months plus one day.

Niall

[/quote]

Head, angels, pin, but is a person one day old on the day of birth then?

Actually, it may not be arguing about angels on the head of a pin - both the rabies booster vaccine due-date, and horse vaccine due-date are critical to the day and I date the certificates as being due one year to the day from the date of vaccination. i.e. 11th of July this year, 11th July 2014. Why? Because if the vaccine lasts one day, it would be boosted tomorrow, if it lasts one week, it would be boosted on the 18th (not the Sunday which would be seven inclusive days and boosting before there was a "gap" of a day to Monday), and extending that takes three years to the 11th July 2014 for a rabies booster.

All c*cked up by including a leap year of course!

Re: New PETs rules

Niall Taylor — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:16:03 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]Had a young dog born on 10/4/11 vaccinated by my non LVI colleague on the 9/4/11[/quote]

Vaccinated a day before he was born - most impressive

If you meant born 10/4/11 and vaccinated 9/7/11 then that is actually 3 calendar months. 10/4/11 to 10/7/11 is three calendar months plus one day.

Niall

Re: New PETs rules

Kate Richardson — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:47:41 GMT

On a slightly different but related note- why don't DEFRA make the minimal age an animal can be vaccinated at for rabies an exact figure eg 12 weeks rather than 3 calendar months. Had a young dog born on 10/4/11 vaccinated by my non LVI colleague on the 9/4/11. Our mistake, so will have to repeat a rabies vaccine at no charge but 3 calendar months can vary from 90-92 days depending on which months are involved!!!! Defra say they go by the manufacturers guide lines, manufacturers say they go by defras guidelines which says it all!

Re: New PETs rules

Julian Earl — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:32:50 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]

[quote user="Julian Earl"]So a dog that has failed its test is not safe to come back to the UK on the 31st Decmber, but will be the following day? Interesting..[/quote]

I think the a point of changing the rules is accepting that without a blood test the extra rabies risk in the UK is massively low; changing the rules doesn't suddenly 'make the dog safe' (whatever that means), it changes the risks we are accepting.

[/quote]

Psss, Rob... yes, I know. I was being tongue-in-cheek. Or even downright sarcastic.

Re: New PETs rules

Rob Loxley — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 00:25:00 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"]So a dog that has failed its test is not safe to come back to the UK on the 31st Decmber, but will be the following day? Interesting..[/quote]

Re: New PETs rules

Julian Earl — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 20:11:23 GMT

[quote user="Sally Burnell"]

I'm not sure if your question about the failed rabies blood tests was for me but I've checked with Defra. If a blood test has been failed then there can be no entry or re-entry to the UK this year (2011). If entry or re-entry (from an EU or listed 3rd country) is to be from 1st Jan 2012 onwards the blood test result does not come into the equation. The pet must simply qualify under the new rules. The pet counld not come in from an unlisted 3rd country as a passed blood test will be required.

[/quote]

So a dog that has failed its test is not safe to come back to the UK on the 31st Decmber, but will be the following day? Interesting...

Re: New PETs rules

Stephen Courtney — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:10:14 GMT

@Martin, the rabies hyperimmune serum is not used in animals.Consequences of failure are significant!

In endemic countries rabid animals are euthanased, In-contacts with no vaccine history are euthanased. If they have up to date rabies vaccinations they are 'observed' - a form of quarantine. usually if rabies has been transmitted the animal becomes obviously affected within a month, though obviously it might take longer. I imagine taking such an animal back into your home must involve a bit of soul-searching!

Re: New PETs rules

Stephen Courtney — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:01:48 GMT

[quote user="Tony Knapp"]

[quote user="Stephen Courtney"]

I do not believe there is a single case of an animal with a protective rabies antibody titre going on to develop rabies. so the 6 month wait is irrelevant. In fact it always was - the incubation period in some cases can be up to 12 months. The 6 month thing was a compromise from the start.

[/quote]

I have been vaccinated too for rabies, obviously with the human vaccine, but something that has been told to me each time (two start ups and one booster, I'm worse then half my clients for remembering vaccinations) is that the vaccine is NOT protective, it gives you time to get the post exposure treatment. Does this mean that the animal vaccine is more effective (or their immune systems) or is it an extra saftey barrier for human infection, I've often wondered what would be required in a post exposure case in a dog or cat (or ferret lets be fair), does getting bitten while abroad stop (at least in theory) the pet passport being valid?

[/quote]

I think you have been misinformed. The vaccine is protective, however in cases of known or suspected exposure, there is a protocol for extra vaccinations to be given, to be on the safe side. Given the possible consequences of a vaccine failure. Your GP will not know the protocol, if need be you will have to push hard.

I have had so many rabies vaccines in the last 25 years that I have decided not to have any more. I'll take the risk of a post exposure course.

Re: New PETs rules

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:10:34 GMT

[quote user="Tony Knapp"]

[/quote]

I suspect that in the case of humans it is a belt and braces recommendation. I can see no reason why the vaccines would be less effective in humans than animals but as we're talking about an inevitably fatal disease once symptoms start, I think most of us would err on the side of caution and have some post-known exposure treatment if available. In dogs it is largely precautionary mainly because there is a much bigger chance of a dog being bitten by a rabid animal and the owner may not even know about it. It would be interesting if there are any cases of dogs being treated with rabies antiserum after being bitten by a known rabid animal.

Re: New PETs rules

Bob Russell — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:27:59 GMT

My attitude is along the lines of 'why bother'. We will not lose income because more people will go for passports than before and if there is a case of rabies in the UK then it will not be the veterinary professions fault.

For their protection I will consider vaccinating my dogs as the EU clearly consider the UK to be the same as much of Europe where vaccination of pets against rabies is compulsory. Now that would be a nice little earner for vets! (very sarcastic smiley!).

Re: New PETs rules

Martin Jones — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:09:02 GMT

Already had a client (who, no disrespect intended, wasn't exactly an academic) who worked out within a few seconds that, as he doesn't now need to come back for bloods, the whole demonstration of titres was either compeletly pointless, or else we're now admitting defeat and opening up the borders to rabies, in which case why bother at all. Refer to DEFRA for further info........

Re: New PETs rules

Bob Russell — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:39:07 GMT

As I have already said there seems to have been non-specific discussion reported but no clear warning the scheme was to be so drastically changed. At no stage have I seen it clearly set out that the intention was to stop the blood testing for entry to the UK.

A sensible compromise would have been to continue with the blood tests to ensure 'protection' could be shown. The 6 months waiting time seems to be a bit arbitrary.

Clearly a pet failing to respond to the vaccine adequately is either at risk or a risk unless we take the view that the serological tests are meaningless!

Re: New PETs rules

Sally Burnell — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:42:26 GMT

[quote user="Utlendigur"]

[quote user="Sally Burnell"]

For reference here are the relevant BVA press releases

25 Sept 2009

17 Feb 2010 (as part of the London dinner speech)

23 Feb 2010

9 Mar 2010

19 Mar 2010

Thanks

Sally

[/quote]

There's a big gap between Mar 2010 and June 2011 where it all seems to have gone quiet

Are we permitted to issue passports for animals that have failed rabies blood tests, and whose owners have decided not to revaccinate and retest, provided the boosters are up to date - even though the rabies bloods were done under the "old rules" ?[/quote]

Good point but in addition to BVA news releases there has been a fair amount of coverage in the Veterinary Record on the issue (some of which has been linked to speeches given by BVA or BSAVA). A quick search on the VR website pulls up the following:

2 July 2011 The BVA at the FVE General Assembly

2 July 2011 FVE urged to support continued controls on E multilocularis

25 June 2011 Pet travel: absolute harmonisation ‘not a scientifically sound position’

9 April 2011 A new BSAVA officer team

19 February 2011 Cutting surveillance could prove catastrophic, says BVA President

29 January 2011 (mentioned as part of the Officer Team Diary)

25 December 2010 Out with the old (a look back at 2010 and ahead to 2011)

It was also highlighted as one of the key policy issues in our annual report which was emailed to members on 1st September 2010. This included the information that the derogation would come to an end at the end of December 2011.

I hope that helps.

In response to a few enquiries from members the BVA has now uploaded a briefing on client scenarios to the website which may be useful. This has been checked by Defra for accuracy.

Thanks

Sally

Re: New PETs rules

Tony Knapp — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:37:07 GMT

[quote user="Stephen Courtney"]

[/quote]

Re: New PETs rules

Bob Russell — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 09:00:13 GMT

We have not had any communication from DEFRA. There seems to have been a whopping jump from PETS being discussed and the complete withdrawal of the scheme!

I suspect it is a cost cutting measure. No scheme, no need to supervise/process paperwork.

Re: New PETs rules

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:03:27 GMT

Well, now they'll find another way to keep us busy. :)

Re: New PETs rules

Stephen Courtney — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 22:37:17 GMT

[quote user="Charlotte Marshall"]

[quote user="Stephen Courtney"]In addition the system has been subject to flagrant cheating since it all began in Feb 2000. I am aware, anecdotally, but believe the stories to be true, of serial importations of breeding stock with the benefit of a single pet passport - the ID chip is in the dog's collar! and I am also aware of flagrant certification violations by mainland vets who can't see the point of the whole thing - asking my clients what date and time to put on the tick and tapeworm pages.[/quote]

I had one a few weeks ago. Owner's dog was in Germany at the vets and they were unable to read it's chip so just put a new one in and stuck the sticker over the old number in the passport. You couldn't tell there was another number underneath so the dog happily came back into the UK. I have given it the rabies booster it was due and told her it should not travel again before another blood test, wait etc. (which will not now apply) but I am pretty certain she is going to take it to Europe again on the old passport anyway as it went through customs fine!

[/quote]

the commonest reason for being unable to read a chip is tired batteries in the scanner. Metal collars and choke chains can interfere also.

We have had one dog come through quarantine because the original vet in 2001 made an error on the passport when it was issued, the id chip was inserted AFTER the rabies vaccination - and no one noticed for ages, the dog had been to France for holidays every year since the passport was issued! When it was eventually discovered the dog had to do 6 months quarantine courtesy of VDS. He was a 7 year old Doberman at that time. no clemency from the ministry - none at all. I lost faith in the system around that time, as this dog was clearly no threat to animal or human health.

We had ONE case of genuine microchip failure - the dog left the UK with a working chip, and on return , between the tick and tape treatment and the ferry, the chip stopped working. he went into quarantine, had the old chip excised surgically, a new one immediately reinserted. Dud chip sent to manufacturer who were able to issue a certificate of what the number was. At that point dog left quarantine - cost - well, thank goodness for Mastercard!

It is situations like this that especially make me glad the system has been abolished. Quarantine is brutal.

Re: New PETs rules

Charlotte Marshall — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:12:23 GMT

Re: New PETs rules

Utlendigur — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:00:49 GMT

[quote user="Sally Burnell"]

For reference here are the relevant BVA press releases

25 Sept 2009

17 Feb 2010 (as part of the London dinner speech)

23 Feb 2010

9 Mar 2010

19 Mar 2010

Thanks

Sally

[/quote]

There's a big gap between Mar 2010 and June 2011 where it all seems to have gone quiet

Re: New PETs rules

Sally Burnell — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:34:53 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]

Yes, but you didn't actually go round to his house, Sally. Tchah.

Just been on the phone chasing up a rabies result for somebody, who won't incidentally be going abroad till after Xmas. So rather a pointless exercise and one that might be difficult to explain should he be of the opinion that we may have known about the 'harmonisation' beforehand. Interestingly, whilst I was on the phone I asked the customer services lady about their future plans now, and she had no knowledge whatsoever of any impending changes.

[/quote]

Thanks Martin.

We're aware that a few pet owners have been caught in the transition (particularly those who were trying to plan ahead and be well prepared) as Defra has had a few complaints. However, vets have been giving advice based on the law as it stood at the time of giving advice. BVA couldn't say that things were definitely going to change because we simply didn't know until the announcement was made by the Sec of State. It would have also been wrong for a vet to say 'this will change' only to find out that it wasn't changing and time had been wasted.

Defra has taken responsibility for this and is fielding complaints. I know it doesn't help when the client is getting angry in your consulting room but it's fair for any vet to say they were acting under the rules at the time. It's also the reason we and BSAVA worked with Defra to get the message out as quickly as possible!

Re: New PETs rules

Martin Jones — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:24:39 GMT

Yes, but you didn't actually go round to his house, Sally. Tchah.

Re: New PETs rules

Sally Burnell — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:19:52 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

Anyone else missed 'all the information necessary'? Certainly can't find any news releases on the website, or in old BVA news articles anywhere.

Astounded by this.

[/quote]

David - I'm sorry if you've not seen the information we have sent out. Our records show that you received the member email on Thursday but you may not have had chance to read it. The information from the email is available for members as a pdf on our website In response to a number of emails and calls from members we have also been working on a list of client scenarios. This is being checked by AHVLA and Defra for accuracy and should be up on the website tomorrow. In addition a joint BVA/BSAVA press release was issued on Thursday and has been up on our website since Thursday morning

The email from BVA was sent to members who have informed us of their interest in small animal issues or who have told us that their area of work is small or mixed practice. Any BVA members that did not receive the email but feel they should have done can review their 'preferences' on our website after logging in. It's in the members area

FInally, there will be a letter from the CVO and BVA President in this week's Veterinary Record. We have made a huge effort to reach vets as quickly and as helpfully as possible.

BVA and BSAVA have been in a number of meetings with Defra on this issue for some time and the issue has come up at our VPG (Veterinary Policy Group) meetings where all the species divisions are represented plus other independent members. The decision was only made by the Secretary of State last week so it was not possible to say anything concrete before then. However, BVA has been flagging up the harmonisation issue at every available opportunity. There have been various press releases (see below), news articles in Veterinary Record and there was a session dedicated to the issue at BVA Congress 2009.

For reference here are the relevant BVA press releases

25 Sept 2009

17 Feb 2010 (as part of the London dinner speech)

23 Feb 2010

9 Mar 2010

19 Mar 2010

Thanks

Sally

Re: New PETs rules

Kay Colquhoun — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 13:19:49 GMT

BSAVA has just included a selection of 'Frequently Asked Questions' on the website which we hope you find useful. We will be continue to add to these pages over the coming weeks and months - http://www.bsava.com/Advice/PetTravel/FAQs/tabid/1441/Default.aspx

Re: New PETs rules

Gillian Mostyn — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 21:36:39 GMT

we also got the same email, direct from the AHVLA