Image: ‘parvo puppies’ get treatment at a vet
Canine Parvovirus (parvo) is a highly contagious virus that is a common cause of diarrhea in pups under 6 months of age. It is also one of the most common serious dog disease problems encountered in animal shelters.
On the 15th of January, the RSPCA South Australia’s Lonsdale shelter was forced to postpone the launch of their “revamped Adoptions and Pet Accommodation Centre”, due to a parvo outbreak.
RSPCA (SA) Executive Manager of Animal Operations, Kerriann Campbell, said the situation is being closely monitored by the RSPCA clinical team, and strict controls are already in place.
“Unfortunately three puppies and an adult dog have been euthanased after testing positive to parvovirus,” she said.
Parvo is preventable and treatable. Parvo in shelters is prevented by vaccinating pets immediately on arrival, good hygiene and housing practices and standard disease prevention protocols.
The treatment for parvo cases include in-house veterinary care if a isolation facility exists. If the facility is not equipped to provide treatment, then parvo positive dogs can be moved to a private veterinary clinic. Treatment includes fluid therapy, antibiotics and anti-nausea meds. Fundraising to cover these costs is a good use of community support.
According to the ASPCA (US);
In general, if aggressive therapy is initiated early in the course of the disease, the prognosis for puppies to recover can be excellent, although fatalities do occur.
and…
As for adult dogs, many of them become infected but never actually show clinical signs of disease.
The days of using killing as the single treatment for testing positive to parvo, showing symptoms of parvo, or simply just exposure to the disease, are over.
This RSPCA outbreak saw three puppies and a dog killed. Were these animals symptomatic, or did they simply ‘test positive’ for the parvo virus? Could they have been isolated and treatment begun if they became sick? Was it just that they were exposed to the virus and were therefore killed? What treatment was given to these animals, other than killing them? Did they contract the disease in the shelter, and if so, what investigations were done into the spread and how it could be avoided in the future?
Regardless, the shelter has had another problem this week, with parvo in the shelter again causing a disruption to their planned event;.
The RSPCA is postponing this weekend’s Family Fun Day at Lonsdale.
Unfortunately, parvovirus has been detected in one of our enclosures at the animal shelter. At this stage it appears to be an isolated case, but we are taking every precaution.
….
As this is the second time parvovirus has been detected at Lonsdale this year, we’d like to remind everyone about the importance of vaccinating their animals.This is the best way to protect your dog – and others – against parvovirus.
Yes. And the best way to ensure shelter pets don’t succumb is using appropriate science-based disease management and treatment strategies.
Just wanted to say that this shelter has A1+++ hygiene in their kennel facilities. They’re exceptionally clean, treated with appropriate products, and just generally well maintained. Good hygiene and housing is definitely not the cause of parvo in this shelter.
That being said, it doesn’t mean that the pets that test positive at their facility deserve to be dead instead of treated. That goes without saying.
In terms of vaccinating animals on intake, I wonder what the legal position is on this, and hope you might be able to elaborate. For animals that enter a facility that are on hold (i.e. animals that are still ‘in limbo’ for 72 hours until they are claimed/unclaimed) – are they able to be vaccinated? How is it legal to perform a medical procedure on an animal that isn’t owned by you?
You know I love your blog. :) And this is something I’ve genuinely been wondering for a while.
Thanks for this clarification Tegan!
And yes – they need to work out how they’re going to manage parvo in a non-fatal way.
Re: treating pets inside their holding period. There tends not to be anything explicitly stated in any Act (depending on the state).
That said, it tends to be interpreted as until ownership is transferred, no treatment can take place. Which is why we see instances where pets are left suffering with untreated injuries in pounds.
Of course it’s also cheaper to not treat them, especially if they’re going to be collected.
But just as we wouldn’t accept that pounds hold pets with an ear hanging off, or a broken leg without treatment, nor should we accept that pets can be exposed to potential deadly disease without at least some basic cover. It costs money – of course. However, unless you can hold that pet in isolation – away from the general pound population – then it’s a duty of care issue.
And as Mitch Schneider says; “Make sure your regulations support and are in harmony with your mission; have your laws reflect your philosophy. Don’t form your mission around the limitations of the laws.”
We’ve seen pounds create laws that highly disadvantage pets (think Frankston Council’s ‘desex before release’ policy), it’s high time we see some laws being used to protect pets.
Thanks for this clarification (and sorry for taking some time to get back to it). I can see what you’re saying.