I have been asked privately to explain my seemingly vehement opposition to
trying to get a quarantine period law or ordinance passed.  OK, let me try
to take you through the steps which lead to my conclusions.
 
Whenever a bite occurs there is supposed to be a step by step procedure in
handling it.  These steps are there to balance the questions of public
safety with individual rights to property.  By following this procedure the
public health official is insuring that all care has been taken to insure
that the decision made was scientifically valid and that it is the right
thing to do.
 
Step #1: Determine whether a bite or other potential exposure occurred.  If
the answer is NO, take no further action, case closed.  If the answer is
YES, move on to step 2.
 
Step #2: Determine whether the biting animal is a potential rabies risk.
Determination is based on the vaccination status of the animal, health and
behavior, biting history, and likelihood of exposure to a rabies vector.  If
the answer is NO, take no further action, case closed.  If the answer is
YES, begin post exposure treatment of the bite victim and continue until the
series is complete or the biting animal has been tested and found to be
negative.  If the answer is INCONCLUSIVE, move on to step 3.
 
Step #3: Based on degree of percieved risk decide whether it is appropriate
to quarantine, kill and test, start post exposure treatment, or other
reasonable action.
 
My objection to seeking quarantine periods is that, by starting at that
point, you are letting them skip steps 1&2.  Years of experience have taught
me that whenever you go for a quarantine the answer is going to be that CDC
currently does not recommend a quarantine and therefor in order to comply
with their guidelines the only option is to kill and test.  This is not
true!  CDC guidelines currently call for the risk assessment defined above.
This is in their wriiten recommendations!
 
It is my opinion (backed up by experience) that asking for a quarantine
which is not recommended by CDC is a dead end argument.  Demanding that they
do their job as defined by current CDC guidelines and doing a risk
assessment will save more ferret lives.  Especially if you back it up by
making it clear that they will be held responsible for any actions outside
these guidelines.  One of the biggest problems comes from the fact that amny
public health officials are laboring under the mistaken impression that they
are not required to do this risk assessment or that they can do an
assessment based on species (if it is a ferret it is automatically
considered rabies suspect)  This used to be the case but has not been so
since the 1992 compendium.
 
Quarantine should only be discussed after a bite has been proven and there
is reason to suspect that the animal might have been exposed to a rabies
vector.  In other words, as a fall back position in a questionable risk
situation.
 
Is this clear to everyone
[Posted in FML issue 2105]