Subscribe now

Letter: Letter: Rabies protection

Published 17 November 1990

From T E ROWELL

Harris and Smith’s discussion of the problems of vaccinating foxes against
rabies using bait seems pessimistic even by their own account: if indeed
70 per cent of the food of urban foxes is provided deliberately by surburban
householders how can only 40 per cent of individuals be taking bait? (‘If
rabies comes to Britain’, 20 October). Would not people be interested in
cooperating to ensure that ‘their’ foxes each received vaccine?

The authors see the most likely source of infection being a smuggled
pet. There would be no reason to smuggle pets if there were no quarantine
regulations. As Britain moves into the European Community, should it not
also join the rest of world in protecting from rabies by routine inoculations
of pets rather than by quarantine? There would be no incentive to smuggle
pets if they could be moved with a valid inoculation certificate. Pet owners
interested enough in their animals to want to carry them across frontiers
normally keep inoculations for several diseases up to date; in this country
a valid rabies inoculation certificate is required with the fee for a city
dog licence.

Eventually, rabies will make it across the Channel in a wild animal.
A largely inoculated pet population would provide resistance to its spread.
Certainly, Victorian disease prevention methods were effective, but in most
cases we have abandoned them in favour of less Draconian modern alternatives.

T E Rowell University of California Berkeley, US

Issue no. 1743 published 17 November 1990

Sign up to our weekly newsletter

Receive a weekly dose of discovery in your inbox. We'll also keep you up to date with New Scientist events and special offers.

Sign up
Piano Exit Overlay Banner Mobile Piano Exit Overlay Banner Desktop