Bill targets excess vaccination of pets

[Guest guest]

Comments?

Misty

http://www..com

 

 

Bill targets excess vaccination of pets

By Valerie Richardson

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

 

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030219-29360359.htm

 

DENVER — The last time Jim Schwartz took his beloved poodle Moolah to

the veterinarian, she was 11 years old and in poor health.

 

Even so, the veterinarian insisted that Moolah receive a one-year

rabies vaccine. Within days, the black standard poodle was dead — the

victim, Mr. Schwartz says, of a vaccination that she didn't need and,

as he discovered later, that wasn't mandated by law.

 

His dog's death transformed Mr. Schwartz from retired financial

planner to tireless opponent of animal overvaccination. After three

years of advocacy, his crusade culminated this year in a Colorado

bill that would reclassify pets as " companions, " limit vaccinations,

and make it possible for their owners to sue for up to $100,000 for

loss of companionship.

 

The current law classifies animals as property and allows owners to

seek only the " fair market value " of their pets, even in the case of

veterinary malpractice.

 

" People don't think of their dogs and cats as just property. They

make pets their beneficiaries in their wills, " said Mr. Schwartz, who

founded the Next-to-Kin Foundation to promote animal welfare. " You

can't make your color TV a beneficiary. "

 

The landmark legislation has since become the center of attention,

but it's not the kind Mr. Schwartz was hoping for. The idea of

designating animals as " companions " became the focus of national and

international joke fodder, appearing in reports on BBC-TV and even

landing a spot last week in the monologue on " The Tonight Show with

Jay Leno. "

 

The Colorado Veterinary Medical Association and the American Humane

Society came out against the bill, arguing that it would result in

more lawsuits against vets and, therefore, increase the cost of

animal health care.

 

Homosexual activists held signs at the state Capitol protesting that

if the bill passed, animals would have more rights than they do.

Republican Gov. Bill Owens said that he wasn't sure what he thought

of the bill, but that his dog Hannah was in favor of it.

 

As a result, the legislation's nine lives are nearly spent. Its

sponsor, Republican state Rep. Mark Cloer, pulled the bill Friday

after the committee refused to hear testimony on it. The legislation

is not likely to be revived, said state Senate Majority Leader John

Andrews.

 

" With all the uproar — the international attention, the jokes on Jay

Leno — I think the wisest thing is to wait until next year, " Mr.

Andrews said. " There's too much of a circus this year. With

everything else we have to do, I don't want to revive this bill. "

 

Despite the Colorado setback, Mr. Schwartz says his drive to curb pet

vaccinations is gaining steam.

 

At the heart of the issue is how often pets need to be vaccinated,

particularly against rabies. In Colorado and 33 other states, the law

permits the usage of the recently developed three-year rabies

vaccine, but most veterinarians aren't telling pet owners about this,

according to a 2000 survey in Vet Trends magazine.

 

As a result, most owners opt for the one-year vaccine, which can

result in pets receiving too much of the medication and putting them

at risk for complications, Mr. Schwartz said.

 

That, he says, is what happened to his dog. His veterinarian told him

that the law mandated an annual fidyl rabies shot, he said, even

though the three-year option became law in July 1999 and the vaccine

label stated that the drug was to be given only to healthy dogs.

 

He contends that veterinarians prefer the annual shot because

vaccinations make up 10 to 15 percent of their business. " A vaccine

costs 60 cents to the vets, but they charge $25 to $38 for the office

visit, " Mr. Schwartz said. " Follow the money. "

 

The Colorado Veterinary Medical Association denies that its members

are trying to profit by overvaccinating pets.

 

Critics also said the Colorado proposal would result in a bonanza for

tort lawyers, which ultimately led Republican lawmakers to put the

legislation in the doghouse.

 

" What they don't understand is that this isn't a liberal boo-hoo

issue, " said Mr. Schwartz, a Republican. " This was a responsible bill

that tries to cut lawyers out of the process. This is a Republican

issue of personal responsibility. "