NEW 1998 CALIFORNIA RABIES COMPENDIUM
Department of Health Recommends "Possibility" of Quarantine for Ferrets
 
May 2, 1998
 
The new 1998 California Compendium of Rabies Control from the California
Department of Health Services (DHS) recommends the possibility that ferrets
involved in bite circumstances be quarantined for 14 days.  While this
recommendation is an improvement upon the previous recommendation to
automatically kill and test, the language used in the compendium
unfortunately opens a door for health officers that have a bias against
ferrets to order their destruction regardless of the new shed studies.
 
In a letter announcing the changes, Dr. Kevin Reilly of CA DHS states:
 
"Introduction of an optional 14-day quarantine period for ferrets that bite
humans: In the past, no quarantine period was recognized for biting ferrets.
Following a review of new research and changes in the national rabies
compendium, the Department decided to recommend the possibility of a 14 day
quarantine period for biting ferrets...."
 
My concern is with Dr. Reilly's use of "optional" and "possibility".  While
some areas of the state are ferret friendly and have quarantined ferrets
with no interference from DHS, even in the absence of the shed studies,
others are clearly hostile to ferrets.  This weak and ambiguous language
gives those health officers that are inclined to kill and test a green light
to destroy healthy ferrets that bite rather than to quarantine them.  The
language in the compendium itself is also weak.  " Biting ferrets may be
quarantined and observed for signs of rabies for fourteen (14) days
following a human bite." (Emphasis added.) Why, given the current studies
and NASPH recommendations, plus the fact that rabies is extremely rare in
ferrets, couldn't the Department simply recommend that ferrets be
quarantined for 14 days?  Even something as definitive as a scientifically
determined shed time becomes a difficult hurdle for this agency if it
benefits ferrets.  It is extremely disappointing to see the controversy
and prejudice within this agency so clearly expressed in what should be a
scientific document.  I have no doubt that some within the department will
be sure to exercise the euthanasia option based on the carefully chosen
language by DHS.
 
The CA DHS ferret bias is also evidenced in the differences between the
compendium's dog/cat recommendations and the ferret recommendations.  Not
surprisingly, the compendium states that ferrets must be confiscated and
reported to the Department of Fish and Game (DFG).  That should have been
enough to comply with the current law, but DHS felt the need to go a step
further.  The compendium states, "Domestic dogs or cats that bite humans
must be placed in quarantine... or be euthanized and immediately tested for
rabies."  Regarding ferrets, the CA compendium says, "If a ferret bites a
human in California, it must be euthanized and tested for rabies or
quarantined." So, dogs and cats must be quarantined (or euthanized), ferrets
must be euthanized (or quarantined).  The fact that the option for
quarantine precedes euthanasia for do and cats, while the option for
euthanasia precedes quarantine for ferrets, is not accidental, it's
intentional and it's prejudical.
 
Another green light to kill and test is the following: "If the ferret bite
is judged by the local health officer to be unusual or to represent an
increased risk for rabies (e.g. unprovoked attacks, bites to the face, or
attacks on children) the animal should be euthanized immediately."  Does a
playful nip to a child from a ferret qualify as posing an unusual risk for
rabies?  Frankly, no such language appears in the section on dogs and cats
and I doubt there are many, if any, health officers in California that can
distinguish between a nip in play and an "unprovoked attack" by a ferret.
They simply have little or no knowledge of this animal and its behavior.  In
addition, absolutely no mention is made of an evaluation or risk assessment
for the ferret in this circumstance, i.e. what is the likelihood the ferret
has been exposed to rabies, is it vaccinated against rabies, and how common
is rabies in this species?
 
The Compendium further states that, "Any unwanted or stray animal that bites
a human should be euthanized and tested immediately." Because of the ban on
ferrets in California, many ferrets go unclaimed due to the fear owners have
of being fined or jailed.  The vast majority of these pets are not unwanted
and may even have a vaccination history, but the law keeps owners
underground.  In light of this, special consideration should be shown for
"stray" ferrets and for the statewide ferret rescue already in place.  Any
ferret that bites while under the control of a humane agency or animal
control where an owner is unknown, should be automatically declared "wanted"
or claimed by ferret rescue and placed in quarantine for 14 days.  After
that time it can be shipped out of state under the normal protocol in place
with the Department of Fish and Game.
 
The new 1998 California Compendium of Rabies Control is a step in the right
direction, albeit a small one and taken very grudgingly.  But the language
and the recommendations in the Compendium are unfortunately short on
objectivity and long on prejudice, and Californians should be extremely
careful where their ferrets are concerned.  All ferrets should be vaccinated
against rabies and owners should not allow any interaction between their
ferrets and persons outside the immediate family.  I don't think the new
Compendium offers owners of ferrets that have been involved in bite
instances much comfort because it offers no guarantee of a quarantine, only
the "possibility" of one.  It is written specifically to allow those with a
state-induced bias against the ferret to satisfy that prejudice if they
choose, and only time will tell if personal feelings will outweigh facts
when ferrets bite in California.  The NASPH made their recommendations based
strictly upon science and I am very disappointed that our DHS did not do the
same.
 
Sections of the compendium including portions of a letter from California
Public Health Veterinarian Kevin Reilly, will be available for review on the
CFL website, http://www.ferretnews.org.
 
Jeanne Carley
Californians for Ferret Legalization (CFL)
410 Mountain Home Road
Woodside, CA  94062
(650) 851-3750
<[log in to unmask]>
[Posted in FML issue 2297]