Amended Complaint Britton v. Heller et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MARCY BRITTON,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 1:19-CV-01113-KWR-JHR
MAYOR TIM KELLER,
DANNY NEVAREZ,
Director of Animal Welfare Department,
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND TRESPASS;
AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff Marcy Britton, by her undersigned counsel, for her cause of action, states:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction and Venue are proper in the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico pursuant to U.S. Const. amend. V, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367,
N.M. Const., Article II, Section 20 and NMSA 1978, Section 42A-1-29 as an action to recover
damages for inverse condemnation or, alternatively, for trespass to land. This action is also brought
under common law to abate a public nuisance created and maintained by the Defendant.
2. This suit is brought against the City of Albuquerque as a political subdivision of the State
of New Mexico, and Mayor Tim Keller and Director Danny Nevarez individually acting under
color of state law.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Marcy Britton (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a resident of Albuquerque, New Mexico
Case 1:19-cv-01113-KWR-JHR Document 14 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 7

2
and owning the residential property at issue in this case.
4. Defendant the City of Albuquerque (hereinafter “Defendant or City”) is a municipal
corporation organized and existing under the laws of New Mexico.
5. Defendant Mayor Tim Keller is the elected Mayor of Albuquerque, with oversight and
control over the City’s executive departments including the Animal Welfare Department.
6. Defendant Danny Nevarez is the Director of the City’s Animal Welfare Department
appointed and under the supervision of the Mayor.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7. At all times material to the allegations of this Complaint, Plaintiff owned or maintained a
real property interest in certain real estate located in the City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County,
New Mexico, having a street address of 1601 Pennsylvania Street NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico
87110 (herein "the Subject Land").
8. It is the responsibility of the City of Albuquerque under NMSA 1978 §77-1-12 that they
“[s]hall make provision by ordinance for the seizure and disposition of dogs and cats running at
large and not kept or claimed by any person on the person's premises.”
9. Beginning several years ago under Mayor Richard Berry and continuing under the direction
of current Mayor Tim Keller, Defendants through the City’s Animal Welfare Department has
maintained a program that operates to fulfill the policy of “trap, neuter and release” (hereinafter
“TNR”) in the handling of stray feral cats and kittens. The Defendants’ TNR program operates so
that stray or feral cats and kittens are trapped, sterilized and vaccinated, and then abandoned at the
location at which they were trapped, such abandonment is done without regard for the cruelty to
animals and without regard for compliance with City Ordinances, State law, federal endangered

3
species law and impacts to human health and welfare. In practice, the City of Albuquerque pays
for and partners with organizations to take and abandon stray feral cats or even young kittens at
the location of their original capture or new location unfamiliar to the cat regardless of whether
the appropriate care or sustenance exists at that location and without regard to impacts to property
values, or damage to private property.
10. The actions of Defendants (individually – the Mayor has directed the TNR program to
continue and the Director orders that the cats continue to be dumped) to dump feral cats at locations
around Albuquerque as part of the City’s program, including locations at Plaintiff’s property, have
resulted in the establishment or growth of feral cat colonies that amount to an extreme nuisance
that exposes Plaintiff, her neighbors and especially children unnecessarily to disease vectors for
toxoplasmosis, rabies, plague and other diseases, leads to property damage from cat defecation,
urination and physical damage from the feral cats themselves, all of which result in the diminution
of Plaintiff’s property values.
11. There are now or have been dozens, if not tens of dozens of feral cats acting to blight
Plaintiff’s property as a direct result of the actions of Defendants.
12. In June of 2019, Plaintiff attempted to sell her property. While speaking to an interested
party that was preparing to make an offer, the interested party saw a cat at the location, and asked
if cats lived in the area. Plaintiff was required to make a good faith disclosure regarding the feral
cats the have overrun her property due to the TNR program and the potential buyer backed out,
stating emphatically that the did not want to live in an area where there were feral cats loose, and
being released. See Exhibit 1, Declaration of Marcy Britton. Plaintiff had not attempted to sell her
property prior to this occurrence and was not aware that a decrease in saleability of her property.
Based upon this conversation and upon information and belief, Plaintiffs property will now

4
appraise for less that she purchased the property for as a result of the blight from the City’s
programs.
13. One week before the last mayoral election, in October 2018, Tim Keller contacted Plaintiff
and discussed with her the problems with the Albuquerque Animal Welfare Services and the Trap-
Neuter-Release program. Mr. Keller promised Plaintiff that he was aware of the problem and
promised to stop TNR. See Exhibit 1, Declaration of Marcy Britton.
14. Plaintiff spoke with Mr. Neverez on December of 2018 regarding the issues listed in this
complaint. Mr. Neverez simply told Plaintiff that he could not talk to her about it.
15. Both Mayor Keller and Mr. Neverez were made aware of the issues surrounding TNR by
Plaintiff.
16. Plaintiff insured via her telephone conversations with Defendants that they were aware of
the problem facing her community as a direct result of the TNR program, and Mayor Keller
promised to end the program.
17. In addition, Plaintiff has been sending letters to the City of Albuquerque regarding the
issues with TNR, and requesting relief, for several years.
CAUSE OF ACTION NO. I – UNLAWFUL TAKING UNDER THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND THE NEW MEXICO CONSTITUTION
18. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
19. Plaintiff is entitled to recover just compensation and damages pursuant to U.S. Const.
amend. V, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, N.M.Const., Art. II, §20 and §42A-1-29, supra as a result of
Defendant's partial takings of, and damages caused to, the Subject Land. Such damages, the
amount of which shall be proven at trial, include without limitation: direct physical damage to the
Subject Land and the loss of property value as result of the Defendants’ actions. See Exhibit 1,

5
Declaration of Marcy Britton.
20. Plaintiff is entitled to recover her costs and is also entitled to recover her reasonable
attorney fees for inverse condemnation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, N.M.Const. NMSA 1978,
§42A-l-25(A)(3) as held by the New Mexico Supreme Court in Landavazo v. Sanchez, 111 N.M.
137, 802 P.2d 1283(S.Ct. 1990).
21. Plaintiff seeks a declaration from this Court that Defendants have unlawfully and
unconstitutionally taken property for public use without just compensation. Plaintiff also requests
an order awarding attorneys’ fees and costs.
COUNT II – TRESPASS AND NUISANCE
22. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
23. Alternatively, Defendants’ TNR program, operated outside of lawful authority, constitutes
a direct infringement on Plaintiff’s rights of ownership and possession of the Subject Land such
as to constitute a trespass.
24. The Defendants’ actions to create and maintain such an extreme and unpleasant nuisance
resulting in a partial takings of the Subject Land resulted in damages to Plaintiff such as to justify
an action in trespass and was in wanton and reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights such as to justify
an award of punitive damages.
25. The actions of the Defendants to operate their TNR program to dump/abandon feral cats
throughout the City represent substantial and unreasonable interference with the common right of
the citizens of Albuquerque to the quiet enjoyment of their property without concern for damage
to that property or the unnecessary risk of disease. The actions of the Defendants constitute
creating and maintaining a public nuisance.

6
26. Abandoned feral cats and kittens are commonly known to defecate and urinate on people’s
property and in public places such as playgrounds in parks or at schools. Such realities lead to
unpleasant odors and can lead to exposure of humans to toxoplasmosis, plague and other diseases.
Feral cats are a known concern to carry and spread rabies. Feral cats are commonly understood to
have severe negative impacts on bird populations, including birds protected by either the
Endangered Species Act or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. They also pose a health and fatality
risk to citizens’ domesticated pets. The death of feral cats through starvation, accident or disease
is by definition cruel and unnecessary, a reality that must be witnessed and impacts the enjoyment
of everyday life of the City’s citizens.
27. Under common law doctrine a government agency may be held liable for creating and
maintaining a public nuisance such that equitable relief enjoining the Defendants from continuing
to create and maintain this public nuisance is appropriate and warranted.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Defendants City of Albuquerque,
Mayor Keller and Director Nevarez: 1) inversely condemned the private property of Plaintiff
through the actions to dump feral cats at the property of Plaintiff as part of the City’s TNR program
without providing just compensation, 2) unlawfully trespassed against Plaintiff’s property, and 3)
have perpetrated an extreme nuisance against Plaintiff and the other residents of the City. Plaintiff
prays for a judgment for just compensation for the property taken from her, actual damages against
Defendants in the amount to be proven at trial, for punitive damages, for prejudgment interest, for
an injunction prohibiting the trap, neuter and release of feral cats and kittens by the City, and for
its reasonable attorney fees and costs.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff requests a trial by a jury of twelve (12) persons.

7
Dated: January 28, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ A. Blair Dunn
A. Blair Dunn, Esq.
abdunn@ablairdunn-esq.com
Western Agriculture, Resource
and Business Law Advocates, LLP
400 Gold St. SW, Suite 1000
Albuquerque, NM 87102
(505)750-3060; Fax (505)226-8500
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 28, 2020, I filed the foregoing pleading electronically through
the CM/ECF system which caused all parties and/or counsel of record to be served by electronic
means.
/s/ A. Blair Dunn
A. Blair Dunn, Esq.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
MARCY BRITTON,
Plaintiff,
v. No.
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE,
MAYOR TIM KELLER,
DANNY NEVAREZ,
Director of Animal Welfare Department
Defendants.
DECLARATION OF MARCYBRITTON
I, MARCY BRITTON, declare as follows:
1. I am a resident of New Mexico and I own property located at 1601 Pennsylvania
St. NE, Albuquerque, 87110.
2. I am over 18 years of age and am authorized to act and make statements on behalf
of myself.
3. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration, the facts set
forth are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection. If called, I could and would
testify to these facts in a court of law.
4. The City never asked me if they could put cats outside my door and window and I
hate living like this. I and other citizens suffer so that the City can falsify its statistics and
make the shelter appear “no kill”. The shelter euthanasia numbers may look lower because
cats and kittens are dumped outside to be killed by cars, disease or people who harm them
1:19-cv-01113-KWR-JHR
EXHIBIT 1
Case 1:19-cv-01113-KWR-JHR Document 14-1 Filed 01/28/20 Page 1 of 51

2
5. A week before the last mayoral election, Tim Keller called me about his plans for
improving Albuquerque Animal Welfare Services (“AAW”), He said “I promise to fire Paul
Caster.” Caster was the director of AAW. Mayor Keller further stated, “And I promise to stop
TNR (“Trap-Neuter-Release”) immediately.” After hearing that, I made up my mind to vote for
Mr. Keller and I did.
6. I was very happy to hear his promises because, like many property owners and tenants
living where the City dumps cats in its TNR program, my property and psychological and
physical health had and has been compromised by the feral cat colony introduced to my property
by the City. Since most of the City-dumped cats where I live had been killed by cars and Tim
Keller promised TNR would stop, I felt that, at least, I could sell my condo and the cats would
not be an issue. Although Mayor Keller did fire Paul Caster, he broke is promises to stop TNR.
7. The program became even worse. New TNR cats (as identified by freshly notched
ears) were dumped on my property which lowered its value. I lost a potential buyer because they
were not willing to live with stray cats and kittens. I completely understood. I have seen too
many injured, suffering cats and kittens right outside my bedroom window.
8. I did buy a humane cat trap and brought many cats to the shelter only to see them
brought back again to my property, sometimes within hours. They eventually got hit by cars. One
night in December 2018, my neighbor pounded on my door and told me he ran over a small cat
and she was bleeding profusely. She was too injured to move. All I could do was stay with her
until she died. It took an hour in 11-degree weather. She was about 4 months old and I knew she
was a TNR cat because of her freshly notched ear. I have taken other injured TNR cats to a
veterinarian at my own expense because the City refuses to pick up cats.

When Cats Bite: 1 in 3 Patients Bitten in Hand Hospitalized,
Infections Common
By Sharon Theimer | February 5, 2015
Middle-aged women were most common cat bite victims
Rochester, Minn. — Feb. 5, 2014 — Dogs aren’t the only pets who sometimes bite the hands that feed
them. Cats do too, and when they strike a hand, can inject bacteria deep into joints and tissue, perfect
breeding grounds for infection. Cat bites to the hand are so dangerous, 1 in 3 patients with such wounds
had to be hospitalized, a Mayo Clinic study covering three years showed. Two-third of those hospitalized
needed surgery. Middle-aged women were the most common bite victims, according to the research,
published in the Journal of Hand Surgery.
Journalists: sound bites with Dr. Carlsen are available in the downloads.
Why are cat bites to the hand so dangerous? It’s not that their mouths have more germs than dogs’
mouths — or people’s, for that matter. Actually, it’s all in the fangs.
“The dogs’ teeth are blunter, so they don’t tend to penetrate as deeply and they tend to leave a larger
wound after they bite. The cats’ teeth are sharp and they can penetrate very deeply, they can seed
bacteria in the joint and tendon sheaths,” says senior author Brian Carlsen, M.D., a Mayo Clinic plastic
surgeon and orthopedic hand surgeon.
“It can be just a pinpoint bite mark that can cause a real problem, because the bacteria get into the
tendon sheath or into the joint where they can grow with relative protection from the blood and immune
system,” Dr. Carlsen adds.
The bacteria injected by a cat bite can include a strain common in animals and particularly hard to fight
with antibiotics, he says.
In the study, researchers identified 193 Mayo Clinic patients with cat bites to the hand from January 1,
2009, through 2011. Of those, 57 were hospitalized; on average, they were in the hospital three days. Of
those hospitalized, 38 needed to have their wounds surgically irrigated, or flushed out, and infected tissue
removed, a procedure known as debridement. Eight patients needed more than one operation, and some
needed reconstructive surgery.
Of the 193 patients, 69 percent were female, and the mean age was 49. About half of the patients first
went to the emergency room, and the others went to primary care. The mean time between the bite and
medical care was 27 hours. Patients with bites directly over the wrist or any joint in the hand had a higher
risk of hospitalization than people with bites over soft tissue, the study found.
Thirty-six of the 193 patients were hospitalized immediately when they sought medical care, while 154
were treated with oral antibiotics as outpatients and three weren’t treated. The outpatient antibiotic
treatment failed in 21 patients, a 14 percent failure rate, and those patients needed to be hospitalized.
The bottom line: Physicians and victims of cat bites to the hand need to take the wounds seriously and
carefully evaluate them, Dr. Carlsen says. When patients have inflamed skin and swelling, aggressive
treatment should be pursued, he and the other researchers say.
People tend to be more dismissive of cat bites than dog bites, in part because cat bites often look like
a pinprick, and dog bites look much worse, Dr. Carlsen says.
That’s a mistake, he says: “Cat bites look very benign, but as we know and as the study shows, they are
not. They can be very serious.”
### Attachment 1 page Page 1 of 2

About Mayo Clinic
Recognizing 150 years of serving humanity in 2014, Mayo Clinic is a nonprofit worldwide leader in
medical care, research and education for people from all walks of life. For more information,
visit 150years.mayoclinic.org, MayoClinic.org or https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/.
https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/when-cats-bite-1-in-3-patients-bitten-in-hand-hospitalized-
infections-common/
Attachment 1 page Page 2 of 2

REVIEW ARTICLE
Zoonotic Diseases Associated with Free-Roaming Cats
R. W. Gerhold1
and D. A. Jessup2
1
Center for Wildlife Health, Department of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
2
California Department of Fish and Game (retired), Santa Cruz, CA, USA
Impacts
• Free-roaming cats are an important source of zoonotic diseases including
rabies, Toxoplasma gondii, cutaneous larval migrans, tularemia and plague.
• Free-roaming cats account for the most cases of human rabies exposure
among domestic animals and account for approximately 1/3 of rabies post-
exposure prophylaxis treatments in humans in the United States.
• Trap–neuter–release (TNR) programmes may lead to increased naı¨ve
populations of cats that can serve as a source of zoonotic diseases.
Domestic cats are a potential source of numerous infec-
tious disease agents; however, many of these diseases are
controlled in cats belonging to responsible owners
through routine veterinary care, proper vaccination regi-
mens and parasite chemotherapy. Free-roaming cats often
lack the necessary preventative care to control these dis-
eases and consequently pose a potential health threat to
other domestic animals, wildlife and humans. Historically,
animal control programmes have been paramount in
minimizing zoonotic risk in the United States. In the
1950s, a rabies control programme began, which included
mandatory rabies vaccination in dogs and animal control
programmes aimed at removing free-roaming animals
(Rupprecht et al., 2001). These programmes have signifi-
cantly reduced the incidence of human rabies in the Uni-
ted States. However, in the last decade, there has been a
marked reduction in social support for collection and
euthanasia of free-roaming animals, particularly cats. In
some areas, animal control has been turned over to pri-
vate organizations that follow a ‘no-kill’ philosophy and
routinely release free-roaming animals. Diminished
resources and willingness to collect free-roaming animals
Keywords:
Cutaneous larval migrans; free-roaming cats;
rabies; toxoplasmosis; zoonoses
Correspondence:
R. Gerhold. Center for Wildlife Health,
Department of Forestry, Wildlife, and
Fisheries, The University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, TN 37996-4563, USA. Tel.: 865
974 0465; Fax: 865-974-0465; E-mail:
rgerhold@utk.edu
Received for publication March 16, 2012
doi: 10.1111/j.1863-2378.2012.01522.x
Summary
Free-roaming cat populations have been identified as a significant public health
threat and are a source for several zoonotic diseases including rabies,
toxoplasmosis, cutaneous larval migrans because of various nematode parasites,
plague, tularemia and murine typhus. Several of these diseases are reported to
cause mortality in humans and can cause other important health issues includ-
ing abortion, blindness, pruritic skin rashes and other various symptoms. A
recent case of rabies in a young girl from California that likely was transmitted
by a free-roaming cat underscores that free-roaming cats can be a source of
zoonotic diseases. Increased attention has been placed on trap–neuter–release
(TNR) programmes as a viable tool to manage cat populations. However, some
studies have shown that TNR leads to increased immigration of unneutered
cats into neutered populations as well as increased kitten survival in neutered
groups. These compensatory mechanisms in neutered groups leading to
increased kitten survival and immigration would confound rabies vaccination
campaigns and produce naı¨ve populations of cats that can serve as source of
zoonotic disease agents owing to lack of immunity. This manuscript is a review
of the various diseases of free-roaming cats and the public health implications
associated with the cat populations.
Zoonoses and Public Health
ª 2012 Blackwell Verlag GmbH • Zoonoses and Public Health 1

have led to increasing numbers of free-roaming animals;
and rabies exposure in humans remains an important
public health threat.
Rabies
Since 1988, rabies has been detected more frequently in
cats than dogs in the United States (Rupprecht, 2002),
and in 2008 the number of rabies cases in cats (n = 294)
was approximately four times the number of cases in
dogs (Blanton et al., 2009). In 2010, rabies cases declined
in all domestic animals, except for cats, which comprised
62% (n = 303) of all rabies cases in domestic animals
(Blanton et al., 2011). In contrast, dogs accounted for 69
rabies cases, which is a 14% decrease from 2009.
Although rabies is detected most frequently in various
wild animals in the United States and the majority of
human rabies cases in the United States are attributable
to bites of rabid bats, multiple studies have disclosed that
human exposure to rabies is largely associated with free-
roaming cats because of people being more likely to come
in contact with cats, large free-roaming cat populations
and lack of stringent rabies vaccination programmes
(Childs, 1990; Cole and Atkins, 2007; Roseveare et al.,
2009; Eidson and Bigman, 2010). A recent case of rabies
in an 8-year old girl from California in 2010 disclosed
that the patient had multiple cat bites from free-roaming
cat colonies near her house (Blanton et al., 2011).
Although rabies RNA was unable to be collected for
molecular typing, the epidemiological data highly suggest
that the girl was exposed by a rabid free-roaming cat
(CDC MMWR, 2012).
From 2002 to 2006 in Georgia, 70 cats tested positive
for rabies and the virus was detected more frequently in
cats than in any other domestic animal (Cole and Atkins,
2007). Moreover, 17% of all confirmed human rabies
exposures in Georgia were attributable to cat bites from
2004 to 2006, whereas domestic dogs comprised 5% of all
confirmed human rabies in Georgia during the same time
period. A separate investigation of rabies exposure in
domestic animals in upstate South Carolina disclosed that
free-roaming cats were disproportionately associated with
potential human rabies exposure and were most fre-
quently reported rabid among domestic exposure animals
(Roseveare et al., 2009). Similarly, in New York from
1993 to 2010, cats accounted for the majority of human
rabies exposure incidents (32%) and post-exposure pro-
phylaxis (PEP) treatments (31%) (Eidson and Bigman,
2010). In Pennsylvania, rabid cat cases exceeded all cases
of rabid wild animals, with the exception of raccoons,
and in 2009 and 2010, rabid cat cases (n = 56) were tied
with skunks for the second most frequently diagnosed
animal (Herman, 2010). In contrast to the 56 free-roam-
ing cat cases in 2010 in Pennsylvania, dogs, cattle and
horses constituted 4, 7 and 5 cases, respectively. In 2011,
numerous press releases from various county health
departments have documented the presence of rabid cats
including a rabid cat in Worchester County, MD: two
human exposure cases in Cecil County, MD, owing to
bites by a rabid cat; four human exposures in Wantage
Township, NJ, owing to two rabid free-roaming cats; and
two cases of human exposure owing to free-roaming cat
bites in Hall County, GA. Similarly in 2012, a rabid free-
roaming cat in Cherokee County, GA, led to rabies PEP
treatment for at least seven people. Unfortunately, report-
ing to county health departments is not performed in
uniform manner; thus, the actual cases of rabies exposure
in humans owing to cats are likely underestimated.
Rabies virus is transmitted via saliva from one host to
another primarily via a bite from a rabid animal. Follow-
ing a bite of a rabid animal and virus inoculation, the
virus replicates in neurons and disseminates via the ner-
vous system. Later in the infection, the virus can be
found in highly innervated organs including cornea, skin
and salivary glands (Iwasaki, 1991). Rabies leads to vari-
ous neurological impairment symptoms, and the disease
is invariably fatal. Individuals exposed to potentially rabid
animals are administered PEP, and cat exposures account
for approximately 1/3 of all PEP recipients. Post-exposure
prophylaxis regimen generally costs $5000–8000 for each
individual, which is mostly borne by public health agen-
cies (Recuanco et al. 2007). Although rabies vaccination
may be provided to free-roaming cats by some trap–neu-
ter–release (TNR) programmes, it does not decrease the
need for PEP because (i) cats can shed virus for a few
days prior to clinical onset, (ii) the uncertainty about
free-roaming cat vaccination status, (iii) the inability to
determine time and route of virus exposure in the cats,
and (iv) the inability to confine free-roaming cats for
observation similar to dogs (Jessup and Stone, 2010;
Brown et al., 2011). Additionally, Murray et al. (2009)
reported rabies cases in 22 (2%) of vaccinated cats,
including two cats classified as currently vaccinated, indi-
cating that vaccine failures can occur. Moreover, TNR
advocates are unlikely to administer rabies immunization
of all free-roaming cats. This is significant because one
rabid cat in an aggressive (i.e. furious rabies) condition
can lead to multiple exposure events because furious
rabid animals often seek potential hosts to bite. Rabid
cats were found to exhibit aggressive behaviour (55% of
cases) more frequently than dumb behaviour, which is in
contrast to rabid dogs which only displayed aggressive
behaviour in 33% of cases (Eng and Fishbein, 1990).
Moreover, rabid cats were significantly more likely than
rabid dogs to bite a person (62% vs. 36%) (Eng and
Fishbein, 1990).
Zoonoses and Free-Roaming Cats R. W. Gerhold and D. A. Jessup
2 ª 2012 Blackwell Verlag GmbH • Zoonoses and Public Health

In vaccination studies, it was demonstrated that feline
leukaemia virus (FeLV)-infected cats may not be able to
mount adequate immune response to some rabies vaccines
(Franchini, 1990). The author indicated that FeLV-infected
cats should be confined strictly indoors to prevent spread
of FeLV to other cats in the neighbourhood and if left out-
side in areas at risk of rabies, FeLV-positive cats should
receive more frequent rabies vaccination (every 6 months).
In a prospective study of FeLV and feline immunodefi-
ciency virus (FIV) in Canada, the authors noted that 6%
(n = 14) of free-roaming cats were FeLV seropositive,
whereas only 2% (n = 4) of owned cats were FeLV sero-
positive (Little, 2011). The risk of being seropositive for
either virus was most frequently associated with being free-
roaming, followed by having access to outdoors. Owing to
the threat of rabies exposure as documented above, the
2011 Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Con-
trol states that stray animals including cats should be
removed from the community through local health depart-
ments and animal control officials (Brown et al., 2011).
Free-roaming cat behaviour
An investigation of the demographic differences of urban
groups of neutered and sexually intact free-roaming cats
following a TNR procedure disclosed that the neutered
groups increased significantly compared to intact groups
because of higher immigration and lower emigration
(Gunther et al., 2011). Additionally, the authors noted
that sexually intact adult cats immigrated into the neu-
tered groups at a significantly higher rate than the sexu-
ally intact groups. These immigrating cats were not
tame and succeeded to integrate into the group, which
highly suggests that these were free-roaming cats and not
abandoned house cats. In addition, kitten survival in the
neutered groups was significantly higher than in the
unneutered groups. The authors suggested that immigrat-
ing sexually intact females had increased fertility along
with increased survivorship of kittens as a population
compensation response to neutered individuals. These
data suggest that neutered cat groups act as attractant of
sexually intact free-roaming cats, thus negating the belief
that TNR programme leads to decrease in free-roaming
cat populations. In a separate study, free-roaming cats
changed movement patterns and habitat on a seasonal
basis compared to owned cats (Horn et al., 2011). Inter-
estingly, the free-roaming cats used more grasslands and
urban areas than predicted because of available habitat.
Although the owned cats were neutered, it was not con-
sidered a reason for the movement pattern differences
because in a separate investigation, Guttilla and Stapp
(2010) did not find a significant difference between the
movement of neutered cats and intact cats. These data
suggest that immigrating and habitat switching of unvac-
cinated cats may severely limit the protection offered by
vaccination of TNR processed cats and would not abate
the zoonotic threat of rabies in these groups.
Secondary mesocarnivore impacts
Free-roaming cat colony feeding stations attract wild
mesocarnivores (Gehrt, 2003), potentially exacerbating
human rabies exposure incidents. Raccoons, bats, skunks
and various fox species are the wildlife species most fre-
quently infected with rabies, depending on the region of
the United States. By attracting mesocarnivores, feeding
stations likely increase the potential interaction between
humans and mesocarnivores, leading to a greater public
health risk of exposure to rabies. Furthermore, raccoons
harbour an intestinal nematode parasite, Baylisascaris
procyonis (i.e. raccoon roundworm), that has caused mor-
bidity and mortality in humans, especially children (Kaza-
cos, 2001). Infections occur after accidental ingestion of
the microscopic B. procyonis eggs containing embryonated
larvae followed by larvae migration (i.e. larval migrans)
through visceral organs, eyes and brain. The geographical
distribution of B. procyonis is expanding from its historical
range from Midwestern, Western and Northeastern United
States (Kazacos, 2001). Baylisascaris-positive raccoons have
been found in multiple states in the Southeastern United
States, Canada, Europe and Japan (Kazacos, 2001; Souza et
al., 2009; Blizzard et al., 2010; Yabsley et al., 2010). The
finding of B. procyonis in raccoons only near urban areas
in Georgia (Blizzard et al., 2010) is of particular interest
given that managed free-roaming cat colonies are likely to
be found in urban and suburban settings.
Domestic cats can be a source of infection for native wild-
life. Contact or consuming domestic cats can be a threat to
native predators. Consumption of free-roaming cats by cou-
gar or panther (Felis concolor) poses a risk of FeLV transmis-
sion, and suspected cases of domestic cat-transmitted FeLV
in wild felids have been reported in California and Florida
(Jessup et al., 1993; Cunningham et al., 2008). Genetic anal-
ysis of the FeLV virus associated with mortality in 5 Florida
panthers indicated that the virus envelope sequence was
nearly identical indicating the source or the infection was
likely from a single domestic cat (Brown et al., 2008).
Endoparasities
Domestic and wild felids are the definitive host for several
zoonotic parasites, including the protozoan Toxoplasma
gondii and the ascarid Toxocara cati. Similar to B. procyo-
nis of raccoons, the host defecated eggs (Toxocara) or
oocysts (Toxoplasma) of these parasites are extremely
environmentally resistant (Long, 1990; Kazacos, 2001),
R. W. Gerhold and D. A. Jessup Zoonoses and Free-Roaming Cats

and human infections can occur months or possibly even
years after the cat has excreted the parasite egg. For this
reason, cat faeces-contaminated playgrounds, garden soil,
sandboxes and other outdoor recreational areas may serve
as a source of infection for humans (Holland and Smith,
2006; Lee et al., 2010). The prevalence of T. cati was
higher in urban areas than rural areas, and soil samples
from urban parks contained a higher proportion of
T. cati compared to the canine Toxocara, Toxocara canis.
These data suggest that the higher levels of T. cati are
associated with free-roaming cats in urban areas. Toxocara
cati infections have been associated with visceral and ocu-
lar larval migrans and can result in permanent ocular
damage in infected humans (Lee et al., 2010).
In toxoplasmosis, humans are infected primarily by
ingestion of sporulated oocyst in cat faeces-contaminated
soil or water or tissue cysts in undercooked or raw meat
(Elmore et al., 2010). Nutter et al. (2004) reported a
higher seroprevalence of T. gondii in free-roaming cats
than pet cats, with the lowest prevalence in cats kept
indoors. Similar results were found among free-roaming
cats in Sri Lanka and Seoul, Korea (Kulasena et al., 2011;
Lee et al., 2011). Contact with infective T. gondii oocysts
in cat faeces has been shown to be a primary risk factor
for human toxoplasmosis (Elmore et al., 2010).
For many years, the risk of infection from oocysts has
been dismissed as considerably less common than infec-
tion from ingestion of undercooked or raw meat.
Recently, a T. gondii embryogenesis-related protein anti-
body (TgERP), which is sporozoite specific, has been
developed, which allows for serological distinction
between oocyst and tissue cyst infection given that spor-
ozoites are only present in oocysts (Hill et al., 2011). The
TgERP can be detected within 6–8 months post-infection
allowing for detection of oocyst infection in acute
stage infections. Of 163 individuals in acute stage infec-
tion, 103 (63%) were positive for TgERP indicating that
the majority of human infection was attributable to
oocyst infection (Hill et al., 2011). Toxoplasma infections
can manifest as ocular diseases, neurological impairment
and lead to blindness, abortions and birth defects, partic-
ularly hydrocephalus, in humans (Dubey and Odening,
2001). Toxoplasmosis is also a significant risk for individ-
uals receiving immuosuppressive therapy, transplant
recipients and is a major cause of systemic infection and
death for immunosuppressed (e.g. HIV/AIDS) patients
(Elmore et al., 2010). An increased risk of schizophrenia,
autism, Alzheimer’s and other neuro-inflammatory dis-
eases has been proposed with T. gondii infection (Fekadu
et al., 2010; Prandota, 2010), but further research is
needed to fully understand the neurological effects of
T. gondii. Toxoplasmosis is also a major disease issue for
wildlife and has been documented in multiple wild avian
and mammalian species, especially marine mammals and
Australian marsupials (Dubey and Odening, 2001; Dubey,
2002; De Thoisy et al., 2003; Lindsay and Dubey, 2007).
In addition, toxoplasmosis is an important cause of
abortion in domestic animals including sheep and goats.
In addition to the above parasite species, human infec-
tions with domestic cat hookworms, including Uncinaria
stenocephala, Ancyclostoma tubaeforme, A. brazilense and
A. ceylanicum, have been reported (Bowman et al., 2010).
After defecation, hookworm eggs hatch and the infectious
filariform larvae can penetrate the skin of animals or
human hosts. Infective larvae can cause skin lesions known
as cutaneous larva migrans (CLM) and less frequently
pneumonitis, muscle infection and ocular manifestations.
Occasionally, A. ceylanicum can develop into an adult
hookworm in humans and cause abdominal discomfort
(Prociv, 1998). Several reports of human infections of feline
hookworm infections have been reported from soil under
houses or on beaches that cats defecate upon. Approxi-
mately 75% of free-roaming cats in Florida were positive
for A. tubaeforme, and 33% were positive for A. braziliense
(Anderson et al., 2003). In 2006, 22 people were diagnosed
with CLM at a Miami-Dade County children’s camp.
Although free-roaming cats were found in the vicinity of
the camp, the source of the infection was not determined
(CDC MMWR, 2007). In 2010, contaminated cat faeces
was responsible for at least seven confirmed and eight
unconfirmed human hookworm infections in Miami-Dade
County from contaminated beaches (Personal communica-
tion Miami Dade health Department). In both of these
incidents, the County public health department bore the
expense and responsibility of trapping the free-roaming
cats and removing faeces from the contaminated areas to
minimize further human infections.
Ectoparasites and vector-borne diseases
Ectoparasites of domestic cats, especially the cat flea (Cte-
nocephalides felis), are important in transmission of zoo-
notic diseases. Three major flea-associated diseases of cats
in the United States include cat-scratch disease (CSD),
flea-borne typhus and plague (McElroy et al., 2010). Cat-
scratch disease or bartonellosis is caused by the gram-neg-
ative bacterium Bartonella henselae. Cats are the primary
source of the bacteria; however, they are inapparent carri-
ers and thus appear healthy. Animal to animal and ani-
mal to human infection occurs by exposure of an open
wound, from a scratch or bite, or B. henselae-contami-
nated flea faeces. Fleas acquire B. henselae from a previ-
ous bloodmeal from an infected cat. Symptoms in human
with CSD include fever, headaches and regional lymph
node enlargement, and the disease is one of the most fre-
quent diagnoses of benign lymphadenopathy in children

and young adults (McElroy et al., 2010). Atypical compli-
cations including encephalitis, retinitis and endocarditis
occur in 5–15% of CSD-infected humans (Chomel et al.,
2004), and recently Bartonella spp. infection has been
associated with chronic rheumatic symptoms, clinically
similar to chronic Lyme disease, in humans (Maggi et al.,
2012). Seroprevalence of B. henselae in cats ranges from
14 to 93% (Nutter et al., 2004; Case et al., 2006; Lappin
et al., 2006), and free-roaming cats had a significantly
higher seroprevalence than pet cats (Nutter et al., 2004).
In addition to CSD, cat fleas are potentially able to
vector rickettsial diseases including murine typhus (Ric-
kettesia typhi) and a closely related zoonotic disease agent,
Rickettesia felis which are potential human health threats
wherever cat, rat or flea populations are dense (Case
et al., 2006). Similar to CSD, cats are inapparent carriers
of R. typhi, and outbreaks have been associated with
free-roaming cat colonies in Hawaii (Jessup, 2004). Other
reported cases of murine typhus in the United States are
focused in central and south-central Texas and Los Ange-
les area (Adams et al., 1970; Sorvillo et al., 1993). In the
Los Angeles R. typhi focus, 90% (n = 9) of collected cats
were seropositive for R. typhi antibodies, whereas no sero-
positive cats (n = 21) were found in the control areas
where no human infections were reported (Sorvillo et al.,
1993). Flea suppression is the first public health action
often initiated; however, failure to control free-roaming
cat populations can lead to future disease outbreaks.
Additionally, human bacterial diseases including tulare-
mia, caused by Francisella tularensis, and plague, caused
by Yersinia pestis, have been associated with direct contact
with cats or cat fleas (Liles and Burger, 1993; Gage et al.,
2000; McElroy et al., 2010). Approximately, 8% of plague
cases in the United States are associated with transmission
from cats, and cases of cat exposure associated plague are
reported year round where flea-associated cases are gener-
ally restricted to warmer months (Gage et al., 2000). Cats
frequently develop the pneumonic form of plague, which
is considerably more infectious to humans in close con-
tact, and results in rapidly progressive and frequently fatal
disease. Both tularemia and plague can cause various
symptoms and potentially lead to fatal respiratory disease
or multiorgan failure in both humans and other animals
(Spagnoli et al., 2011). It is suggested that in addition to
harbouring infected fleas, cats preying on infected rodents
can contain the bacterial agents of tularemia and plague
in their mouths and potentially transmit the bacteria to
humans via bites or scratches.
Viruses
Cats have been implicated as potential vectors of other
diseases not historically associated with felines, including
SARS and H1N1 and H5N1 avian influenza as evidenced
by natural and experimental infection of domestic cats
(Kuiken et al., 2004; Songserm et al., 2006; Thiry et al.,
2007; Anonymous, 2011). In the experimentally infected
cats, excreted virus was transmitted to sentinel cats dem-
onstrating horizontal transmission and suggesting cats
can be involved in epidemiology and transmission of the
virus (Kuiken et al., 2004). Cats have been infected with
H5N1 through ingestion or close contact of infected birds
as well as intratracheal and intra-oral infection of a
human isolated virus strain (Thiry et al., 2007). Addition-
ally, cats have been found to be subclinically infected with
H5N1 (Leschnik et al., 2007), and more research is
needed to determine the role cats may play in the epide-
miology and spread of avian influenza.
Conclusion
The information in this review highlights the serious pub-
lic health diseases associated with free-roaming cats and
underscores the need for increased public health attention
directed towards free-roaming cats. Diseases including
rabies, toxoplasmosis, cutaneous larval migrans and vari-
ous vector-borne diseases have been shown to be associ-
ated with free-roaming cats. Rabies exposure in human is
disproportionally associated with free-roaming cats com-
pared to other domestic animals. This fact should be of
paramount concern to public health officials because of
the high mortality rate of clinical rabies and the signifi-
cant cost of PEP in exposed people. Furthermore, TNR
programmes can increase immigration and kitten recruit-
ment, which would lead to naı¨ve populations of cats that
would be a source for zoonotic diseases including
rabies and toxoplasmosis. While citizens who are con-
cerned about the perceived improved welfare of cats in
TNR programmes may be very vocal in their support of
free-roaming cat populations, local, county and state
legislative and medical officials need to understand the
economic and public health threats associated with
various policies and laws associated with free-roaming cat
populations. Further resources are needed to educate the
public, the medical community and public health officials
about the zoonotic disease potential associated with free-
roaming cats.
References
Adams, W., R. Emerson, and J. Brooks, 1970: The changing
ecology of murine (endemic) typhus in Southern California.
Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 19, 311–318.
Anderson, T. C., G. W. Foster, and D. J. Forrester, 2003:
Hookworms of feral cats in Florida. Vet. Parasitol. 115,
19–24.

Anonymous, 2011: H1N1 influenza turns up again in cats.
J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 238, 964.
Blanton, J. D., K. Robertson, D. Palmer, and C. Rupprecht,
2009: Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2008.
J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 235, 676–689.
Blanton, J., D. Palmer, J. Dyer, and C. Rupprecht, 2011: Rabies
surveillance in the United States during 2010. J. Am. Vet.
Med. Assoc. 239, 773–783.
Blizzard, E., C. Davis, S. Henke, D. Long, C. Hall, and M.
Yabsley, 2010: Distribution, prevalence, and genetic charac-
terization of Baylisascaris procyonis in selected areas of
Georgia. J. Parasitol. 96, 1128–1133.
Bowman, D. D., S. P. Montgomery, A. M. Zajac, M. L.
Eberhard, and K. R. Kazacos, 2010: Hookworms of dogs
and cats as agents of cutaneous larva migrans. Trends
Parasitol. 26, 162–167.
Brown, M., M. Cunningham, A. Roca, J. Troyer, W. Johnson,
and S. O’Brien, 2008: Genetic characterization of Feline
Leukemia virus from Florida Panthers. Emerg. Infect. Dis.
14, 252–259.
Brown, C., L. Conti, P. Ettestad, M. Leslie, F. Sorhage, and B.
Sun, 2011: Compendium of animal rabies and control, 2011.
J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 239, 609–617.
Case, J. B., B. Chomel, W. Nicholson, and J. E. Foley, 2006:
Serological survey of vector-borne zoonotic pathogens in
pet cats and cats from animal shelters and feral colonies.
J. Feline Med. Surg. 8, 111–117.
CDC Morbidity, Mortality Weekly Report, 2007: Outbreak of
cutaneous larva migrans at a children’s camp – Miami,
Florida, 2006. 54, 1285–1287.
CDC Morbidity, Mortality Weekly Report, 2012: Recovery of
a patient from clinical rabies- California, 2011. 61, 61–65.
Childs, J. E., 1990: Urban cats: their demography, population-
density, and owner characteristics in Baltimore, Maryland.
Anthrozoos 3, 234–244.
Chomel, B., H. J. Boulouis, and E. B. Breitschwerdt, 2004: Cat
scratch disease and other zoonotic Bartonella infections.
J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 224, 1270–1279.
Cole, D., and L. Atkins, 2007: Rabies: the epidemic continues
in Georgia. Ga. Epidemiol. Rep. 23, 1–4.
Cunningham, M., M. Brown, D. Shindle, S. Terrell, K. Hayes,
B. Ferree, R. T. McBride, E. Blankenship, D. Jansen, S.
Citino, M. Roelke, R. Kiltie, J. Troyer, and S. O’Brien, 2008:
Epizootiology and management of feline leukemia virus in
the Florida puma. J. Wildl. Dis. 3, 537–552.
De Thoisy, B., M. Demar, C. Aznar, and B. Carme, 2003:
Ecologic correlates of Toxoplasma gondii exposure in
free-ranging neotropical mammals. J. Wildl. Dis. 39, 456–
459.
Dubey, J. P., 2002: A review of toxoplasmosis in wild birds.
Vet. Parasitol. 106, 121–153.
Dubey, J. P., and K. Odening, 2001. Toxoplasmosis and related
infections. In: Samuels, W. M., M. J. Pybus, and A. A.
Kocan (eds), Parasitic Diseases of Wild Mammals, pp.
478–519. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.
Eidson, M., and A. Bigman, 2010: Terrestrial rabies and
human postexposure prophylaxis, New York, USA. Emerg.
Infect. Dis. 16, 527–529.
Elmore, S. A., J. L. Jones, P. A. Conrad, S. Patton, D. S.
Lindsay, and J. P. Dubey, 2010: Toxoplasma gondii: epidemi-
ology, feline clinical aspects, and prevention. Trends Parasi-
tol. 26, 190–196.
Eng, T. R., and D. B. Fishbein, 1990: Epidemiologic factors,
clinical findings, and vaccination status of rabies in cats and
dogs in the United States in 1988. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc.
197, 201–209.
Fekadu, A., T. Shibre, and A. J. Cleare, 2010: Toxoplasmosis as
a cause for behavior disorders- overview of evidence and
mechanisms. Folia Parasitol. 57, 105–113.
Franchini, M. 1990. Die Tollwutimpfung von mit felinem
Leuka¨mivirus infizierten Katzen. Veterinary Dissertation.
Zu¨rich University.
Gage, K. L., D. T. Dennis, K. A. Orloski, P. Ettestad, T. L.
Brown, P. J. Reynolds, W. J. Pape, C. L. Fritz, and L. G.
Carter, 2000: Cases of cat-associated plague in the Western
US, 1977–1998. Clin. Infect. Dis. 30, 893–900.
Gehrt, S. D. 2003. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) and allies. In:
Feldhamer, G. A., B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman (eds),
Wild Mammals of North America, 2nd edn, pp. 611–634.
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Gunther, I., H. Finkler, and J. Terkel, 2011: Demographic
differences between urban feeding groups of neutered and
sexually intact free-roaming casts following a trap-neuter-
return procedures. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 238, 1134–1140.
Guttilla, D., and P. Stapp, 2010: Effects of sterilization on
movements of feral cats at a wildland-urban interface.
J. Mammal. 91, 482–489.
Herman, K. 2010. An Update on the Incidence of Rabies in
Pennsylvania in 2010. Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture, Pennsylvania Veterinary Laboratory,
Pennsylvania Bureau of Animal Health & Diagnostic
Services, Pennsylvania, 3pp.
Hill, D., C. Coss, J. P. Dubey, K. Wroblewski, M. Sautter, T.
Hosten, C. Munõz-Zanzi, E. Mui, S. Withers, K. Boyer, G. .
Hermes, J. Coyne, F. Jagdis, A. Burnett, P. McLeod, and H.
Morton, 2011: Identification of a sporozoite-specific antigen
from Toxoplasma gondii. J. Parasitol. 97, 328–337.
Holland, C. V., and Smith H. V., eds (2006) Toxocara: The
Enigmatic Parasite, pp. 301. CABI Publishing, Cambridge,
MA.
Horn, J., N. Mateus-Pinella, R. Warner, and E. Heske, 2011:
Home range, habitat use and activity patterns of free-roam-
ing domestic cats. J. Wildl. Manage. 75, 1177–1185.
Iwasaki, Y., 1991: Spread of rabies virus within the central ner-
vous system. In: Baer, G. M. (ed.), The natural history of
rabies, 2nd edn, pp. 122–132. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Jessup, D. E., 2004: The welfare of feral cats and wildlife.
J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 225, 1377–1383.
Jessup, D., and E. Stone, 2010: More on feral cats. J. Am. Vet.
Med. Assoc. 235, 7.

Jessup, D., K. Pettan, and L. Lowenstine, 1993: Feline leukemia
virus infection and secondary spirochetemia in a free-rang-
ing cougar (Felis Concolor). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 214,
73–79.
Kazacos, K. R. 2001. Baylisascaris procyonis and related species.
In: Samuel, W. M., M. J. Pybus, and A. A. Kocan (eds),
Parasitic Diseases of Wild Mammals, 2nd edn, pp. 301–341.
Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
Kuiken, T., G. Rimmelzwaan, D. V. Riel, G. V. Amerongen,
M. Baars, R. Fouchier, and A. Osterhaus, 2004: Avian H5N1
in cats. Science 306, 241.
Kulasena, V. A., R. Rajapakse, J. P. Dubey, P. N. Dayawansa,
and S. Premawansa, 2011: Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma
gondii from cats in Colombo Sri Lanka. J. Parasitol. 97, 152.
Lappin, M. R., B. Griffin, J. Brunt, A. Riley, D. Burney, J.
Hawley, M. Brewer, and W. Jensen, 2006: Prevalence of
Bartonella species, haemoplasms species, Ehrlichia species,
Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and Neorickettsia risticii DNA
in the blood of cats and their fleas in the United States.
J. Feline Med. Surg. 8, 85–90.
Lee, A., P. M. Schantz, K. R. Kazacos, S. P. Montgomery, and D.
D. Bowman, 2010: Epidemiologic and zoonotic aspects of asca-
rid infections in dogs and cats. Trends Parasitol. 26, 155–161.
Lee, S. E., N. H. Kim, H. S. Chae, S. H. Cho, H. W. Nam, W.
J. Lee, S. H. Kim, and J. H. Lee, 2011: Prevalence of Toxo-
plasma gondii from feral cats in Seoul, Korea. J. Parasitol.
97, 153–155.
Leschnik, M., J. Weikel, K. Mostl, S. Revilla-Fernandez, E.
Wodak, Z. Bago, E. Vanek, V. Beneetka, M. Hess, and J.
Thalhammer, 2007: Subclinical infection with avian influ-
enza A (H5N1) virus in cats. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 13, 243–247.
Liles, W. C., and R. J. Burger, 1993: Tularemia from domestic
cats. West. J. Med. 158, 619–622.
Lindsay, D. S., and J. P. Dubey, 2007. Toxoplasmosis in wild
and domestic animals. In: Weiss, L. M., and K. Kim (eds),
Toxoplasma Gondii the Model Apicomplexan: Perspectives
and Methods, pp. 133–152. Elsevier, London.
Little, S., 2011: A review of feline leukemia virus and feline
immunodeficiency virus seroprevalence in cats in Canada.
Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 143, 243–245.
Long, P. L. 1990. Coccidiosis of Man and Domestic Animals.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 356 pp.
Maggi, R. G., B. R. Mozayeni, E. L. Pultorak, B. C. Hegarty, J.
M. Bradley, M. Correa, and E. B. Brietscherdt, 2012: Barto-
nella spp. bacteremia and rheumatic symptoms in patients
from Lyme disease-endemic region. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 18,
783–791.
McElroy, K. M., B. L. Blagburn, E. B. Breitschwerdt, P. S.
Mead, and J. H. McQuiston, 2010: Flea-associated zoonotic
diseases of cats in the USA: bartonellosis, flea-borne rickett-
sioses, and plague. Trends Parasitol. 26, 197–204.
Murray, K. O., K. C. Holmes, and C. A. Hanlon, 2009: Rabies
in unvaccinated dogs and cats in the United States, 1997-
2001. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 235, 691–695.
Nutter, F. B., J. P. Dubey, J. F. Levine, E. B. Breitschwerdt, R.
B. Ford, and M. K. Stoskopf, 2004: Seroprevalences of
antibodies against Bartonella henselae and Toxoplasma gondii
and fecal shedding of Cryptosporidium spp, Giardia spp, and
Toxocara catiin feral and pet domestic cats. J. Am. Vet. Med.
Assoc. 225, 1394–1398.
Prandota, J., 2010: Autism spectrum disorders may be due to
cerebral toxoplasmosis associated with chronic neuro-
inflammation causing persistent hypercytokinemia that
resulted in an increased lipid peroxidation, oxidative stress,
and depressed metabolism of endogenous and exogenous
substances. Res. Autism Spectr. disord. 4, 119–155.
Prociv, P. 1998. Zoonotic hookworm infections (Ancylostomo-
sis). In: Palmer, S. R., E. J. L. Soulsby, and D. I. H. Smipson
(eds), Zoonoses, 1st edn, pp. 803–822. Oxford Medical
Publications.
Recuenco, S., B. Cherry, and M. Eidson, 2007: Potential cost
savings with terrestrial rabies control. BMC Public Health 7,
47.
Roseveare, C. W., W. D. Goolsby, and I. M. Foppa, 2009:
Potential and actual terrestrial rabies exposure in people and
domestic animals, Upstate South Carolina, 1994–2004:
a surveillance study. BMC Public Health 9, 65–70.
Rupprecht, C. E., 2002: Rabies: reemergence of the disease.
Compend. Contin. Educ. Vet. 24, 57–60.
Rupprecht, C., K. Stohr, and C. Meredith, 2001. Rabies. In:
Williams, E. S., and I. K. Barker, (ed.), Infectious Diseases
of Wild Mammals, 2nd edn, pp. 3–36. Iowa State University
Press, Ames, IA.
Songserm, T., A. Amonsin, R. Jam-on, N. Sae-Heng, N.
Meemak, N. Pariyothorn, S. Payungporn, A. Theamboon-
lers, and Y. Poovorawan, 2006: Avian influenza H5N1 in
naturally infected domestic cat. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 12,
681–683.
Sorvillo, F., B. Gondo, R. Emmons, P. Ryan, S. Waterman,
and A. Tilzer, 1993: A suburban focus of endemic typhus in
Los Angeles County: association with seropositive domestic
cats and oppossums. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 48, 269–273.
Souza, M., E. Ramsey, S. Patton, and J. New, 2009: Baylisasc-
aris procyonis in raccoons from Eastern Tennessee. J. Wildl.
Dis. 45, 1231–1234.
Spagnoli, S., K. Kuroki, S. Schommer, T. Reilly, and W. Falls,
2011: Pathology in practice. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 238,
1271–1273.
Thiry, E., A. Zicola, D. Addie, H. Egberink, K. Hartmann,
H. Lutz, H. Poulet, and M. C. Horzinek, 2007: Highly
pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 virus in cats and other
carnivores. Vet. Microbiol. 122, 25–31.
Yabsley, M., E. Blizzard, M. Beck, and S. Harsch, 2010:
Geographical expansion of Baylisascaris procyonis round-
worms, Florida, USA. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 16, 1803–1804.

JAVMA •Vol 248 • No. 5 • March 1, 2016 505
Rabies is a fatal viral zoonosis and serious public
health problem.1 All mammals are believed to be
susceptible to the disease, and for the purposes of
this document, use of the term animal refers to mam-
mals. The disease is an acute, progressive encephali-
tis caused by viruses in the genus Lyssavirus.2 Rabies
virus is the most important lyssavirus globally. In the
United States, multiple rabies virus variants are main-
tained in wild mammalian reservoir populations such
as raccoons,skunks,foxes,and bats.Although the Unit-
ed States has been declared free from transmission of
canine rabies virus variants, there is always a risk of
reintroduction of these variants.3–7
The rabies virus is usually transmitted from ani-
mal to animal through bites.The incubation period is
highly variable.In domestic animals,it is generally 3 to
12 weeks, but can range from several days to months,
rarely exceeding 6 months.8 Rabies is communicable
during the period of salivary shedding of rabies virus.
Experimental and historic evidence documents that
dogs, cats, and ferrets shed the virus for a few days
prior to the onset of clinical signs and during illness.
Clinical signs of rabies are variable and include inap-
Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention
and Control, 2016
National Association
of State Public HealthVeterinarians
Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention
and Control Committee
Catherine M.Brown dvm,msc, mph (Co-Chair)
Sally Slavinski dvm,mph (Co-Chair)
Paul Ettestad dvm,ms
Tom J. Sidwa dvm,mph
Faye E. Sorhage vmd,mph
From the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 305 South St, Jamaica Plain,
MA 02130 (Brown); the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,
2 Gotham Center, CN# 22A, 42-09 28th St, Queens, NY 11101 (Slavinski); the New
Mexico Department of Health, 1190 St Francis Dr, Room N-1350, Santa Fe, NM 87502
(Ettestad); and the Texas Department of State Health Services, PO Box 149347, MC
1956,Austin,TX 78714 (Sidwa).
Consultants to the Committee: Jesse Blanton, PhD (CDC, 1600 Clifton Rd, Mailstop
G-33, Atlanta, GA 30333); Richard B. Chipman, MS, MBA (USDA APHIS Wildlife
Services, 59 Chenell Dr, Ste 2, Concord, NH 03301); Rolan D. Davis, MS (Kansas State
University, Room 1016 Research Park, Manhattan, KS 66506); Cathleen A. Hanlon,VMD,
PhD (Retired); Jamie McAloon Lampman (McKamey Animal Center, 4500 N Access
Rd, Chattanooga, TN 37415 [representing the National Animal Care and Control
Association]); Joanne L. Maki, DVM, PhD (Merial a Sanofi Co, 115TransTech Dr,Athens,
GA 30601 [representing the Animal Health Institute]); Michael C. Moore, DVM, MPH
(Kansas State University, Room 1016 Research Park, Manhattan, KS 66506); Jim Powell,
MS (Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, 465 Henry Mall, Madison, WI 53706
[representing the Association of Public Health Laboratories]); Charles E. Rupprecht,
VMD, PhD (Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 3601 Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA
19104); Geetha B. Srinivas, DVM, PhD (USDA Center for Veterinary Biologics, 1920
Dayton Ave, Ames, IA 50010); Nick Striegel, DVM, MPH (Colorado Department of
Agriculture, 305 Interlocken Pkwy, Broomfield, CO 80021); and Burton W. Wilcke Jr,
PhD (University of Vermont, 302 Rowell Building, Burlington,VT 05405 [representing
the American Public Health Association]).
Endorsed by the AVMA, American Public Health Association, Association of Public
Health Laboratories, Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and National
Animal Care and Control Association.
This article has not undergone peer review.
Address correspondence to Dr. Brown (catherine.brown@state.ma.us).
petance, dysphagia, cranial nerve deficits, abnormal
behavior, ataxia, paralysis, altered vocalization, and
seizures. Progression to death is rapid.There are cur-
rently no known effective rabies antiviral drugs.
The recommendations in this compendium serve
as a basis for animal rabies prevention and control pro-
grams throughout the United States and facilitate stan-
dardization of procedures among jurisdictions, there-
by contributing to an effective national rabies control
program. The compendium is reviewed and revised
as necessary, with the most current version replacing
all previous versions.These recommendations do not
supersede state and local laws or requirements. Prin-
ciples of rabies prevention and control are detailed in
Part I, and recommendations for parenteral vaccina-
tion procedures are presented in Part II.All animal ra-
bies vaccines licensed by the USDA and marketed in
the United States are listed and described inAppendix
1, and contact information for manufacturers of these
vaccines is provided in Appendix 2.
Modifications of note in this updated version of
the compendium, compared with the previous ver-
sion,9 include clarification of language, explicit en-
Public Veterinary Medicine: Public Health

506 JAVMA •Vol 248 • No. 5 • March 1, 2016
couragement of an interdisciplinary approach to ra-
bies control, a recommendation to collect and report
at the national level additional data elements on rabid
domestic animals, changes to the recommended man-
agement of dogs and cats exposed to rabies that are ei-
ther unvaccinated or overdue for booster vaccination,
reduction of the recommended 6-month quarantine
period for certain species, and updates to the list of
marketed animal rabies vaccines.
Part I. Rabies Prevention
and Control
A. Principles of rabies prevention
and control
1. Case definition. An animal is determined to
be rabid after diagnosis by a qualified laboratory
as specified (see Part I.A.10.Rabies diagnosis).The
national case definition for animal rabies requires
laboratory confirmation on the basis of either a
positive result for the direct fluorescent antibody
test (preferably performed on CNS tissue) or isola-
tion of rabies virus in cell culture or a laboratory
animal.10
2. Rabies virus exposure. Rabies is transmitted
when the virus is introduced into bite wounds,
into open cuts in skin,or onto mucous membranes
from saliva or other potentially infectious material
such as neural tissue.11 Questions regarding pos-
sible exposures should be directed promptly to
state or local public health authorities.
3. Interdisciplinary approach. Clear and con-
sistent communication and coordination among
relevant animal and human health partners across
and within all jurisdictions (including interna-
tional, national, state, and local) is necessary to
most effectively prevent and control rabies.As is
the case for the prevention of many zoonotic and
emerging infections, rabies prevention requires
the cooperation of animal control, law enforce-
ment, and natural resource personnel; veterinar-
ians; diagnosticians; public health professionals;
physicians; animal and pet owners; and others.
An integrated program must include provisions
to promptly respond to situations; humanely re-
strain, capture, and euthanize animals; administer
quarantine,confinement,and observation periods;
and prepare samples for submission to a testing
laboratory.
4. Awareness and education. Essential compo-
nents of rabies prevention and control include
ongoing public education,responsible pet owner-
ship, routine veterinary care and vaccination, and
professional continuing education. Most animal
and human exposures to rabies can be prevented
by raising awareness concerning rabies transmis-
sion routes, the importance of avoiding contact
with wildlife, and the need for appropriate vet-
erinary care. Prompt recognition and reporting
of possible exposures to medical and veterinary
professionals and local public health authorities
are critical.
5. Human rabies prevention. Rabies in humans
can be prevented by eliminating exposures to
rabid animals or by providing exposed persons
prompt postexposure prophylaxis consisting of
local treatment of wounds in combination with
appropriate administration of human rabies im-
mune globulin and vaccine. An exposure assess-
ment should occur before rabies postexposure
prophylaxis is initiated and should include dis-
cussion between medical providers and public
health officials. The rationale for recommending
preexposure prophylaxis and details of both pre-
exposure and postexposure prophylaxis adminis-
tration can be found in the current recommenda-
tions of theAdvisory Committee on Immunization
Practices.11,12 These recommendations,along with
information concerning the current local and re-
gional epidemiology of animal rabies and the
availability of human rabies biologics, are avail-
able from state health departments.
6. Domestic animal vaccination. Multiple vac-
cines are licensed for use in domestic animal spe-
cies. Vaccines available include inactivated and
modified-live virus vectored products, products
for IM and SC administration, products with dura-
tions of immunity for periods of 1 to 3 years, and
products with various minimum ages of vaccina-
tion. Recommended vaccination procedures are
specified in Part II of this compendium;animal ra-
bies vaccines licensed by the USDA and marketed
in the United States are specified in Appendix 1.
Local governments should initiate and maintain
effective programs to ensure vaccination of all
dogs,cats,and ferrets and to remove stray and un-
wanted animals.Such procedures have reduced lab-
oratory-confirmed cases of rabies among dogs in
the United States from 6,949 cases in 1947 to 89
cases in 2013.3 Because more rabies cases are re-
ported annually involving cats (247 in 2013) than
dogs,vaccination of cats should be required.3 Ani-
mal shelters and animal control authorities should
establish policies to ensure that adopted animals
are vaccinated against rabies.
An important tool to optimize public and ani-
mal health and enhance domestic animal rabies
control is routine or emergency implementation
of low-cost or free clinics for rabies vaccination.
To facilitate implementation, jurisdictions should
work with veterinary medical licensing boards,
veterinary associations, the local veterinary com-
munity, animal control officials, and animal wel-
fare organizations.
7. Rabies in vaccinated animals. Rabies is rare in
vaccinated animals.13–15 If rabies is suspected in a
vaccinated animal, it should be reported to pub-
lic health officials, the vaccine manufacturer, and
the USDA APHIS Center for Veterinary Biologics

(www.aphis.usda.gov; search for “adverse event
reporting”). The laboratory diagnosis should be
confirmed and the virus variant characterized by
the CDC’s rabies reference laboratory.A thorough
epidemiologic investigation including documen-
tation of the animal’s vaccination history and po-
tential rabies exposures should be conducted.
8. Rabies in wildlife. It is difficult to control
rabies among wildlife reservoir species.16 Vacci-
nation of free-ranging wildlife or point infection
control is useful in some situations,17 but the suc-
cess of such procedures depends on the circum-
stances surrounding each rabies outbreak (See
Part I. C. Prevention and control methods related
to wildlife). Because of the risk of rabies in wild
animals (especially raccoons,skunks,coyotes,fox-
es, and bats), the AVMA, American Public Health
Association,Council of State andTerritorial Epide-
miologists, National Animal Care and Control As-
sociation,and National Association of State Public
Health Veterinarians strongly recommend the en-
actment and enforcement of state laws prohibit-
ing the importation, distribution, translocation,
and private ownership of wild animals.
9. Rabies surveillance. Laboratory-based ra-
bies surveillance and variant typing are essential
components of rabies prevention and control
programs. A comprehensive surveillance pro-
gram should not be limited to testing only those
animals that have potentially exposed people or
domestic animals to rabies.Accurate and timely
information and reporting are necessary to guide
decisions regarding postexposure prophylaxis in
potentially exposed humans, determine appro-
priate management of potentially exposed ani-
mals, aid in the discovery of emerging variants,
describe the epidemiology of the disease, and
assess the effectiveness of vaccination programs
for domestic animals and wildlife. Every animal
submitted for rabies testing should be reported
to the CDC to evaluate surveillance trends.Public
health authorities should implement electronic
laboratory reporting and notification systems.18
Information reported on every animal submitted
for rabies testing should include species, point
location, vaccination status, rabies virus variant
(if rabid), and human or domestic animal expo-
sures.To enhance the ability to make evidence-
based recommendations from national surveil-
lance data, additional data should be collected
and reported on all rabid domestic animals. In
this regard, essential data elements include age,
sex, neuter status, ownership status, quarantine
dates (if any), date of onset of any clinical signs,
and complete vaccination history. Rabid animals
with a history of importation into the United
States within the past 60 days are immediately
notifiable by state health departments to the
CDC; for all indigenous cases, standard notifica-
tion protocols should be followed.19
10. Rabies diagnosis.
a) The direct fluorescent antibody test
is the gold standard for rabies diagnosis.The
test should be performed in accordance with
the established national standardized proto-
col (www.cdc.gov/rabies/pdf/rabiesdfaspv2.
pdf) by a qualified laboratory that has been
designated by the local or state health depart-
ment.20,21 Animals submitted for rabies test-
ing should be euthanized22,23 in such a way as
to maintain the integrity of the brain so that
the laboratory can recognize anatomic struc-
tures.Except in the case of very small animals,
such as bats, only the head or entire brain
(including brainstem) should be submitted
to the laboratory.To facilitate prompt labora-
tory testing, submitted specimens should be
stored and shipped under refrigeration with-
out delay.The need to thaw frozen specimens
will delay testing.Chemical fixation of tissues
should be avoided to prevent significant test-
ing delays and because such fixation might
preclude reliable testing. Questions about
testing of fixed tissues should be directed to
the local rabies laboratory or public health
department.
b) Rabies testing should be available out-
side of normal business hours at the discre-
tion of public health officials to expedite ex-
posure management decisions.20 When con-
firmatory testing is needed by state health
departments (eg,in the event of inconclusive
results, unusual species, or mass exposures),
the CDC rabies laboratory can provide addi-
tional testing and results within 24 hours of
sample receipt.24
c) Professional associations such as the
Association of Public Health Laboratories
should advocate for, distribute, and promote
the development of guidelines for routinely
assessing testing practices within rabies labo-
ratories to ensure maintenance of quality and
safety.
d) Adirectrapidimmunohistochemicaltest
(referred to as dRIT) is being used by trained
field personnel in surveillance programs for
specimens not involved in human or domestic
animal exposures.25–28 All positive direct rapid
immunohistochemical test results need to be
confirmed by means of direct fluorescent anti-
body testing at a qualified laboratory.
e) Currently, there are no commercially
available, USDA-licensed rapid test kits for ra-
bies diagnosis. Unlicensed tests should not be
used owing to the following concerns:sensitiv-
ity and specificity of these tests are not known,
the tests have not been validated against cur-
rent standard methods, the excretion of virus
in the saliva is intermittent and the amount var-
ies over time, any unlicensed test result would

need to be confirmed by validated methods
such as direct fluorescent antibody testing on
brain tissue, and the interpretation of results
from unlicensed tests may place exposed ani-
mals and persons at risk.
11. Rabies serology. Some jurisdictions require
evidence of vaccination and rabies virus antibod-
ies for animal importation purposes. Rabies virus
antibody titers are indicative of a response to vac-
cine or infection.Titers do not directly correlate
with protection because other immunologic fac-
tors also play a role in preventing rabies and our
abilities to measure and interpret those other fac-
tors are not well-developed. Therefore, evidence
of circulating rabies virus antibodies in animals
should not be used as a substitute for current vac-
cination in managing rabies exposures or deter-
mining the need for booster vaccination.29–32
12. Rabies research. Information derived from
well-designed studies is essential for the devel-
opment of evidence-based recommendations.
Data are needed in several areas, including viral
shedding periods for domestic livestock and lago-
morphs, potential shedding of virus in milk, the
earliest age at which rabies vaccination is effec-
tive, protective effect of maternal antibody, dura-
tion of immunity, postexposure prophylaxis pro-
tocols for domestic animals, models for treatment
of clinical rabies,extralabel vaccine use in domes-
tic animals and wildlife rabies reservoir species,
host-pathogen adaptations and dynamics, and the
ecology of wildlife rabies reservoir species, espe-
cially in relation to the use of oral rabies vaccines.
B. Prevention and control methods
in domestic and confined animals
1. Preexposure vaccination and management. Ad-
herence to a regular rabies vaccination schedule is
critical to protect animals against recognized and
unrecognized rabies exposures. Parenteral animal
rabies vaccines should be administered only by
or under the direct supervision of a licensed vet-
erinarian on premises. Rabies vaccines may be
administered under the supervision of a licensed
veterinarian to animals held in animal shelters be-
fore release.33,34 The veterinarian signing a rabies
vaccination certificate must ensure that the person
who administered the vaccine is identified on the
certificate and has been appropriately trained in
vaccine storage, handling, and administration and
in the management of adverse events.This ensures
that a qualified and responsible person can be held
accountable for properly vaccinating the animal.
Within 28 days after initial vaccination, a
peak rabies virus antibody titer is expected, and
the animal can be considered immunized.31,35–37
Regardless of the age of the animal at initial vac-
cination, a booster vaccination should be admin-
istered 1 year later (see Part II and Appendix 1).
An animal is currently vaccinated and is consid-
ered immunized immediately after any booster
vaccination.38,39
a) Booster vaccination. Following the ini-
tial vaccination, booster vaccinations should
be given in a manner consistent with the
manufacturer’s label.If a previously vaccinated
animal is overdue for any booster vaccination,
including the first booster vaccination due 1
year after initial vaccination,it should be given
a booster vaccination. Immediately after this
booster vaccination, the animal is considered
currently vaccinated and should be placed
on a booster vaccination schedule consistent
with the label of the vaccine used.There are
no laboratory or epidemiological data to sup-
port the annual or biennial administration of
3-year vaccines after completion of the initial
vaccine series (ie, the initial vaccination and
1-year booster vaccination).
b) Dogs, cats, and ferrets.All dogs, cats,
and ferrets should be vaccinated against
rabies and revaccinated in accordance
with recommendations in this compendi-
um (Appendix 1).
c) Livestock. All horses should be vac-
cinated against rabies.40 Livestock, including
species for which licensed vaccines are not
available, that have frequent contact with
humans (eg, in petting zoos, fairs, and other
public exhibitions) should be vaccinated
against rabies.41,42 Consideration should also
be given to vaccinating livestock that are par-
ticularly valuable.
d) Captive wild animals and wild animal
hybrids (the offspring of wild animals cross-
bred to domestic animals).
(1) Wild animals and wild animal hy-
brids should not be kept as pets.43,44 No
parenteral rabies vaccines are licensed
for use in wild animals or wild animal
hybrids.45
(2) Animals that are farmed (eg, for
food, fur, or fiber) or maintained in ex-
hibits or zoological parks and that are
not completely excluded from all con-
tact with rabies vectors can become in-
fected.46 Moreover,wild animals might be
incubating rabies when initially captured.
Therefore, wild-caught animals suscep-
tible to rabies should be quarantined for
a minimum of 6 months.
(3) Employees who work with ani-
mals in exhibits or zoological parks should
receive preexposure rabies vaccination.
The use of preexposure or postexposure
rabies vaccination for handlers who work
with animals at such facilities might re-
duce the need for euthanasia of captive
animals that expose handlers. Carnivores
and bats should be housed in a manner

that precludes direct contact with the
public.41,42 Consideration may be given to
vaccinating animals that are particularly
valuable (see Part II.D.Vaccination of wild-
life and wild animal hybrids).
2. Stray animals. Stray dogs, cats, and ferrets
should be removed from the community,and mech-
anisms should be put in place to facilitate voluntary
surrender of animals to prevent abandonment. Lo-
cal health departments and animal control officials
can enforce the removal of strays more effectively if
owned animals are required to have identification
and be confined or kept on leash. Strays should be
impounded for at least 3 business days to determine
whether human exposure has occurred and to give
owners sufficient time to reclaim animals.
Stray and feral cats serve as a significant source
of rabies exposure risk.47 If communities allow
maintenance of feral cat colonies despite this risk,
they should safeguard the health of the cats and
the communities in which they reside by requiring
that cats receive initial rabies vaccinations and ap-
propriately scheduled booster vaccinations.
3. Importation and interstate movement of animals.
a) Areas with dog-to-dog rabies transmis-
sion. Canine rabies virus variants have been
eliminated from the United States3,7; howev-
er, rabid dogs and a rabid cat have been in-
troduced into the continental United States
from areas with dog-to-dog rabies transmis-
sion.4–6,48,49 The movement of dogs for the
purposes of adoption or sale from areas with
dog-to-dog rabies transmission increases the
risk of introducing canine-transmitted rabies
to areas where it does not currently exist,and
this practice should be prohibited.
b) International importation.Current fed-
eral regulations are insufficient to prevent the
introduction of rabid animals into the United
States and must be strengthened and appro-
priately enforced.4–6,48,49 The CDC and USDA
APHIS have regulatory authority over the
importation of dogs and cats into the United
States.6 Importers of dogs must comply with
rabies vaccination requirements.50,51 These
regulations require that dogs from rabies-
endemic countries be currently vaccinated
against rabies prior to importation.The appro-
priate health official of the state of destination
should be notified by the appropriate federal
authorities within 72 hours of the arrival of
any unvaccinated imported dog required to
be placed in confinement (as defined by the
CDC52) under these regulations.Failure of the
owner to comply with these confinement re-
quirements should be promptly reported to
the CDC’s Division of Global Migration and
Quarantine (CDCAnimalImports@cdc.gov).
All imported dogs and cats are also subject
to state and local laws governing rabies and
should be currently vaccinated against rabies
with USDA-licensed products in accordance
with this compendium. Failure of the owner
to comply with state or local requirements
should be referred to the appropriate state or
local official.
c) Interstate movement (including com-
monwealths and territories). Before inter-
state movement occurs, dogs, cats, ferrets,
and horses should be currently vaccinated
against rabies in accordance with this com-
pendium.Animals in transit should be accom-
panied by a current, valid rabies vaccination
certificate such as Form 51 from the National
Association of State Public Health Veterinar-
ians.53 When an interstate health certificate
or certificate of veterinary inspection is re-
quired,it should contain the same rabies vac-
cination information as Form 51.
4. Adjunct procedures. Methods or procedures
that enhance rabies control include the following54:
a) Identification. Dogs, cats, and ferrets
should be identified (eg, metal or plastic tags
or microchips) to allow for verification of ra-
bies vaccination status.
b) Licensure. Registration or licensure of
all dogs,cats,and ferrets is an integral compo-
nent of an effective rabies control program.A
fee is frequently charged for such licensure,
and revenues collected are used to maintain
rabies or animal control activities. Evidence
of current vaccination should be an essential
prerequisite to licensure.
c) Canvassing. House-to-house canvass-
ing by animal control officials facilitates
enforcement of vaccination and licensure
requirements.
d) Citations.Citations are legal summons-
es issued to owners for violations, including
the failure to vaccinate or license their ani-
mals.The authority for officers to issue cita-
tions should be an integral part of animal con-
trol programs.
e) Animal control. All local jurisdictions
should incorporate training and continuing
education of personnel regarding stray-ani-
mal control, leash laws, animal bite preven-
tion, and rabies prevention and control into
their programs.
f) Public education. All local jurisdic-
tions should incorporate education covering
responsible pet ownership, bite prevention,
and appropriate veterinary care into their
programs.
5. Postexposure management. This section re-
fers to any animal exposed (see Part I.A. 2. Rabies
virus exposure) to a confirmed or suspected ra-
bid animal. Wild mammalian carnivores, skunks,
and bats that are not available or suitable for test-
ing should be regarded as rabid.The rationale for

observation, confinement, or strict quarantine
periods of exposed animals despite previous vac-
cination is based in part on the potential for over-
whelming viral challenge, incomplete vaccine ef-
ficacy, improper vaccine administration, variable
host immunocompetence, and immune-mediated
death (ie,early death phenomenon).13,55–57
a) Dogs, cats, and ferrets.Any illness in an
exposed animal should be reported immedi-
ately to the local health department. If signs
suggestive of rabies develop (eg, paralysis or
seizures), the animal should be euthanized,
and the head or entire brain (including brain-
stem) should be submitted for testing (see Part
I.A.10.Rabies diagnosis).
(1) Dogs, cats, and ferrets that are
current on rabies vaccination should im-
mediately receive veterinary medical care
for assessment, wound cleansing, and
booster vaccination. The animal should
be kept under the owner’s control and
observed for 45 days.
(2) Dogs, cats, and ferrets that have
never been vaccinated should be eutha-
nized immediately. There are currently
no USDA-licensed biologics for postex-
posure prophylaxis of previously unvac-
cinated domestic animals, and there is
evidence that the use of vaccine alone
will not reliably prevent the disease in
these animals.58 If the owner is unwilling
to have the animal euthanized,the animal
should be placed in strict quarantine for
4 (dogs and cats) or 6 (ferrets) months.
Strict quarantine in this context refers
to confinement in an enclosure that pre-
cludes direct contact with people and
other animals. A rabies vaccine should
be administered at the time of entry into
quarantine to bring the animal up to cur-
rent rabies vaccination status.Administra-
tion of vaccine should be done as soon
as possible. It is recommended that the
period from exposure to vaccination not
exceed 96 hours.59,60 If vaccination is de-
layed,public health officials may consider
increasing the quarantine period for dogs
and cats from 4 to 6 months, taking into
consideration factors such as the severity
of exposure, the length of delay in vac-
cination, current health status, and local
rabies epidemiology.
(3) Dogs and cats that are overdue for
a booster vaccination and that have appro-
priate documentation of having received a
USDA-licensed rabies vaccine at least once
previously should immediately receive
veterinary medical care for assessment,
wound cleansing,and booster vaccination.
The animal should be kept under the own-
er’s control and observed for 45 days.39
If booster vaccination is delayed, public
health officials may consider increasing
the observation period for the animal,tak-
ing into consideration factors such as the
severity of exposure,the length of delay in
booster vaccination, current health status,
and local rabies epidemiology.
(4) Dogs and cats that are overdue
for a booster vaccination and without
appropriate documentation of having
received a USDA-licensed rabies vaccine
at least once previously should imme-
diately receive veterinary medical care
for assessment, wound cleansing, and
consultation with local public health
authorities.
(a) The animal can be treated as
unvaccinated, immediately given a
booster vaccination, and placed in
strict quarantine (see Part I.B.5.a) (2)).
(b)Alternatively,prior to booster
vaccination, the attending veterinar-
ian may request guidance from the
local public health authorities in
the possible use of prospective se-
rologic monitoring. Such monitoring
would entail collecting paired blood
samples to document prior vacci-
nation by providing evidence of an
anamnestic response to booster vac-
cination. If an adequate anamnestic
response is documented, the animal
can be considered to be overdue for
booster vaccination (see Part I. B. 5.
a) (3)) and observed for 45 days.39 If
there is inadequate evidence of an
anamnestic response, the animal is
considered to have never been vacci-
nated and should be placed in strict
quarantine (see Part I.B.5.a) (2)).
(5) Ferrets that are overdue for a
booster vaccination should be evalu-
ated on a case-by-case basis, taking into
consideration factors such as the sever-
ity of exposure, time elapsed since last
vaccination, number of previous vacci-
nations, current health status, and local
rabies epidemiology, to determine need
for euthanasia or immediate booster vac-
cination followed by observation or strict
quarantine.
b) Livestock. All species of livestock are
susceptible to rabies;cattle and horses are the
most frequently reported infected species.3
Any illness in an exposed animal should be re-
ported immediately to the local health depart-
ment and animal health officials. If signs sug-
gestive of rabies develop, the animal should
be euthanized, and the head or entire brain

(including brainstem) should be submitted for
testing (see Part I.A.10.Rabies diagnosis).
(1) Livestock that have never been
vaccinated should be euthanized imme-
diately. Animals that are not euthanized
should be confined and observed on a
case-by-case basis for 6 months.
(2) Livestock that are current on ra-
bies vaccination with a USDA-licensed
vaccine approved for that species should
be given a booster vaccination immedi-
ately and observed for 45 days.
(3) Livestock overdue for a booster
vaccination should be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis, taking into consider-
ation factors such as severity of expo-
sure, time elapsed since last vaccination,
number of previous vaccinations,current
health status, and local rabies epidemiol-
ogy, to determine need for euthanasia or
immediate booster vaccination followed
by observation or strict quarantine.
(4) Multiple rabid animals in a herd
and herbivore-to-herbivore transmission of
rabies are uncommon.61 Therefore,restrict-
ing the rest of the herd if a single animal has
been exposed to or infected with rabies is
usually not necessary.
(5) Rabies virus is widely distributed in
the tissues of rabid animals.62–64Tissues and
products from a rabid animal should not be
used for human or animal consumption65,66
or transplantation.67 However, pasteuriza-
tion and cooking will inactivate rabies vi-
rus.68Therefore,inadvertently drinking pas-
teurized milk or eating thoroughly cooked
animal products does not constitute a ra-
bies exposure.
(6) Handling and consumption of
uncooked tissues from exposed animals
might carry a risk for rabies transmis-
sion.69 Persons handling exposed animals,
carcasses, and tissues should use appro-
priate barrier precautions.69,70 State and
local public health authorities,state meat
inspectors,and the USDA Food Safety and
Inspection Service should be notified if
exposures occur in animals intended for
commercial use. Animals should not be
presented for slaughter in a USDA-regu-
lated establishment if such animals origi-
nate from a quarantine area and have not
been approved for release by the proper
authority. If an exposed animal is to be
custom slaughtered or home slaughtered
for consumption, it should be slaugh-
tered immediately after exposure, and all
tissues should be cooked thoroughly.
c) Other animals. Other mammals ex-
posed to a rabid animal should be euthanized
immediately. Animals maintained in USDA-
licensed research facilities or accredited zoo-
logical parks should be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis in consultation with public health
authorities. Management options may include
quarantine, observation, or administration of
rabies biologics.
6. Management of animals that bite humans.
a) Dogs, cats, and ferrets. Rabies virus is
excreted in the saliva of infected dogs, cats,
and ferrets during illness and for only a few
days before the onset of clinical signs or
death.71–73 Regardless of rabies vaccination
status, a healthy dog, cat, or ferret that expos-
es a person should be confined and observed
daily for 10 days from the time of the expo-
sure74;administration of rabies vaccine to the
animal is not recommended during the ob-
servation period to avoid confusing signs of
rabies with rare adverse vaccine reactions.15
Any illness in the animal should be reported
immediately to the local health department.
Such animals should be evaluated by a veteri-
narian at the first sign of illness during con-
finement. If signs suggestive of rabies devel-
op, the animal should be euthanized, and the
head or entire brain (including brainstem)
should be submitted for testing (see Part I.A.
10. Rabies diagnosis).Any stray or unwanted
dog, cat, or ferret that exposes a person may
be euthanized immediately, and the head or
entire brain (including brainstem) should be
submitted for testing (see Part I.A. 10. Rabies
diagnosis).
b) Other animals. Other animals that
might have exposed a person to rabies
should be reported immediately to the local
health department. Management of animals
other than dogs,cats,and ferrets depends on
the species, the circumstances of the expo-
sure, the epidemiology of rabies in the area,
the exposing animal’s history and current
health status, and the animal’s potential for
exposure to rabies.The shedding period for
rabies virus is undetermined for most spe-
cies. Previous vaccination of these animals
might not preclude the necessity for eutha-
nasia and testing.
7. Outbreak prevention and control. The emer-
gence of new rabies virus variants or the introduc-
tion of nonindigenous viruses poses a significant
risk to humans,domestic animals,and wildlife.75–82
A rapid and comprehensive response involves
coordination of multiple agencies (see Part I.A. 3.
Interdisciplinary approach) to accomplish the fol-
lowing outcomes83:
• Characterize the virus at the national refer-
ence laboratory.
• Identify and control the source of the
introduction.

• Enhance laboratory-based surveillance in
wild and domestic animals.
• Increase animal rabies vaccination rates.
• Restrict the movement of animals.
• Evaluate the need for wildlife intervention
activities (eg, point infection control, trap-
vaccinate-release programs, and oral rabies
vaccination programs).
• Provide public and professional outreach and
education.
8. Disaster response. Animals might be dis-
placed during and after man-made or natural disas-
ters and require emergency sheltering.84–86 Animal
rabies vaccination and exposure histories are often
not available for displaced animals, and disaster re-
sponse can create situations where animal caretak-
ers might lack appropriate training or preexposure
vaccination.In such situations,it is critical to imple-
ment and coordinate rabies prevention and control
measures to reduce the risk of rabies transmission
and the need for human postexposure prophylaxis.
Such measures include the following actions:
• Coordinate relief efforts of individuals and or-
ganizations with the local emergency opera-
tions center before deployment.
• Examine each animal at a triage site for pos-
sible bite injuries or signs of rabies.
• Isolate animals exhibiting signs of rabies
pending evaluation by a veterinarian.
• Ensure that all animals have a unique identifier.
• Administer a rabies vaccine to all dogs, cats,
and ferrets unless reliable proof of current
vaccination exists.
• Adopt minimum standards for animal caretak-
ers as feasible,including use of personal protec-
tive equipment,completion of the preexposure
rabies vaccination series prior to deployment,
and provision of appropriate training.87
• Maintain documentation of animal disposi-
tion and location (eg,returned to owner,died
or euthanized,adopted,or relocated to anoth-
er shelter with address of new location).
• Provide facilities to confine and observe ani-
mals involved in exposures (see Part I. B. 6.
Management of animals that bite humans).
• Report human exposures to appropriate pub-
lic health authorities (see Part I. A. 2. Rabies
virus exposure).
C. Prevention and control methods
related to wildlife
The public should be warned not to handle or
feed wild mammals. Wild mammals and wild animal
hybrids that expose persons, pets, or livestock should
be considered for euthanasia and rabies testing.A per-
son exposed by any wild mammal should immediately
wash the wound thoroughly and report the incident
to a health-care provider who, in consultation with
public health authorities, can evaluate the need for
postexposure prophylaxis.11,12
Translocating infected wildlife has contributed
to the spread of rabies,75–80,88 and animals that appear
healthy can still be rabid.Therefore, translocation (ie,
moving live animals from their point of capture and
releasing them) of known rabies reservoir species
should be prohibited.89 Whereas state-regulated wild-
life rehabilitators and nuisance-wildlife control opera-
tors should play a role in a comprehensive rabies con-
trol program, minimum standards for these persons
who handle wild mammals should include rabies pre-
exposure vaccination, specific rabies prevention and
control training,and ongoing continuing education.
1. Carnivores. The use of oral rabies vaccines for
mass vaccination of free-ranging wildlife should be
considered in selected situations, with the approval
of appropriate state and local agencies.16,90 There
have been documented successes using oral rabies
vaccines to control rabies in wildlife in North Amer-
ica.90–93 The currently licensed vaccinia-vectored oral
rabies vaccine is labeled for use in raccoons and coy-
otes.Research to improve existing oral rabies vaccine
and baits and to develop and test novel products to
determine safety and efficacy must be encouraged.
The distribution of oral rabies vaccines should be
based on scientific assessments of the target species
and followed by timely and appropriate analysis of
surveillance data, with results provided to all stake-
holders. In addition, parenteral vaccination (trap-vac-
cinate-release) of wildlife rabies reservoir species may
be integrated into coordinated oral rabies vaccine
programs to enhance their effectiveness.Continuous
and persistent programs for trapping or poisoning
wildlife are not effective in reducing populations of
wildlife rabies reservoir species on a statewide basis.
However, limited population control in high-contact
areas (eg,picnic grounds,camps,and suburban areas)
might be indicated for the removal of selected high-
risk species of wildlife.State agriculture,public health,
and wildlife agencies should be consulted for plan-
ning, coordination, and evaluation of vaccination or
point infection control programs.16
2. Bats. From the 1950s to today,indigenous rabid
bats have been reported from every state except Ha-
waii and have caused rabies in at least 54 humans in
the United States.94–103 Bats should be excluded,using
appropriate methods, from houses, public buildings,
and adjacent structures to prevent direct association
with humans.104,105 Such structures should then be
made bat-proof by sealing entrances used by bats.Con-
trolling rabies in bats through programs designed to
reduce bat populations is neither feasible nor desirable.
Part II. Recommendations
for Parenteral Rabies
Vaccination Procedures
A. Vaccine administration
All animal rabies vaccines should be restricted to
use by or under the direct supervision of a veterinar-

Amended Complaint Britton v. Heller et al

Amended Complaint Britton v. Heller et al

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Amended Complaint Britton v. Heller et al

Similar to Amended Complaint Britton v. Heller et al (20)

More from HVCClibrary

More from HVCClibrary (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Amended Complaint Britton v. Heller et al