Yes, I read the article,and their biggest reason was the cost.
It's irresponsible to not test a cat prior to adoption, if nothing else, you
will know it was neg/ neg @ the time of testing,can be retested later.
So,if you are adopting out cats and charging a fee, what exactly would the
fee cover, besides surgery,(if even that?).
Do you (not YOU Kelly) just say, "Well,folks, here is your kitty, it may or
may not have felv or fiv.
We wouldn't know because we don't test for that here.
Feel free to have your new cat tested though.
Oh, and if it comes up positive you can talk to your vet about options?"
I know when I helped w/ the Bexar county SPCA rescue, they only tested for
felv, not fiv, to save money.
Their reason was that they did not see very much fiv.
That doesn't bother me.
Not testing for felv bothers me.
Susan J. DuBose >^..^<
www.PetGirlsPetsitting.com
www.Tx.SiameseRescue.org
www.shadowcats.net
"As Cleopatra lay in state,
Faithful Bast at her side did wait,
Purring welcomes of soft applause,
Ever guarding with sharpened claws."
Trajan Tennent
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelley Saveika" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <felvtalk@felineleukemia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: This is pretty interesting
On 9/4/07, Susan Dubose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's irresponsible for a shelter not to test the cats /kittens prior to
> adoption, so that the shelter / potential adopters know what they are
> dealing with.
>
> Why would you not test the cats?
>
> That's more irresponsible than not testing a dog for heartworms.
>
Hi Susan,
If you read the article, they have several reasons - and remember they
are primarily talking about shelters, not rescues:)
I'll just post it here, in the interest of time. Also, Alley Cat
Allies advocates not testing asymptomatic feral cats.
Response from Susan Cosby:
I am really glad that you asked this question! You have hit on an
issue that is close to my heart. I worked at a shelter where we killed
a few visibly healthy cats who tested positive and that just didn't
seem right. Since that time, I've learned a lot and now I am in a
position to set policy and that policy is: Say no to mass testing.
I used to say that FIV/FeLV testing is an expensive, labor intensive
and inhumane method used to cull cats from animal shelters and feral
cat colonies that must be stopped. That answer didn't make me many
friends in the sheltering world so now I say: "I can save your shelter
thousands of dollars, free up your staff to spend more time caring for
animals, save more lives and generate revenue for your veterinary
services!" That seems to get people to listen to me more than the
first answer. You might want to try the same tactic when speaking with
your local shelter and I am going to provide you with the ammunition
you need to make the argument.
Any organization that is committed to saving animal lives must cease
the practice of mass testing for feline leukemia virus (FeLV) and
feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV). Simply put: the volume of cats
entering the sheltering system in almost every community in America is
at a crisis level. Testing places an undue burden on both the health
of the cats and kittens in the shelter and the resources available to
the shelter and the community. A low percentage of cats testing
positive (1 – 2.5%), a high rate of false positive results in visibly
healthy kittens (up to 50%), and a low percentage of cats that are
diagnosed as positive with FIV who go on to develop symptoms (around
10%), clearly demonstrate that these resources, be they financial or
otherwise, would best be spent to provide low and no-cost spay and
neuter services or other immediately effective lifesaving programs.
This philosophy is shared by prominent organizations such as the
Oregon Humane Society, Neighborhood Cats and the Philadelphia Animal
Welfare Society and by smaller local organizations including the
Animal Welfare Association in New Jersey.
The Oregon Humane Society, who ended mass testing for FeLV in 2001
clearly outlined the drawbacks of this type of testing in a written
response about their organization's policy:
"Testing every cat increased the time a cat spent in the shelter's
holding kennel: Drawing blood and performing a feline leukemia test on
an average of 30 to 50 cats per day took two employees up to four
hours to complete and document. Less than one percent of the cats were
testing positive. Testing caused an enormous delay in getting cats out
for adoption; making them more susceptible to illness (such as upper
respiratory infection or URI). The staff time, low rate of positive
results, and the cost of medical supplies (test kits, needles, and
syringes was $25,000 annually) were important factors in this
decision.
Holding cats while they are awaiting the test made them more
susceptible to illness: Most important in the decision to cease
testing every cat was testing interfered with getting cats and kittens
placed for adoption in a timely manner. During our busy season, with
about 50 cats/kittens coming into the shelter daily, performing the
tests slowed down the process of moving cats from the holding kennels
to the adoption kennels. Cats would become ill with URI after 7 to 10
days in the shelter. Many sick cats remained in our shelter for
treatment, were put into foster homes, or unfortunately euthanized for
this treatable illness (URI), not for feline leukemia. The best way we
can protect our cats is to get them through the system and quickly
into a loving home. Since implementation, OHS's adoption rate on cats
has increased significantly.
OHS's goal is to find homes for unwanted animals while keeping them as
healthy as possible while they are in the shelter. Since April 2001
when testing on every cat ceased, OHS experienced a surge in adoptions
of cats and significant reduction in euthanasia."
Through the years more and more shelters that once routinely tested
incoming cats and kittens have ceased the practice. The Animal Welfare
Association stopped mass testing after they determined that less than
one percent of the cats entering the shelter were testing positive and
as many as half of those who did test positive would test negative
when further testing was done in a laboratory setting. Additionally
they made the decision not to kill any cat who tested positive and
chose to place it up for adoption instead.
Reliability of the tests has also been a factor in the decision of
some groups to change their policy of testing and euthanizing positive
cats. Many shelters and sanctuaries now adopt or maintain these cats
as companion animals so they have the opportunity to do follow up
testing. To quote the Home for Life Animal Sanctuary in St. Croix
Valley:
"HFL has at least 6 cats who were surrendered to the sanctuary as
feline leukemia positive, but who have tested negative on the IFA
test. Two to three months later, these cats tested negative on the
ELISA and remained negative on all subsequent ELISA tests. It would
have been a tragedy to euthanize these cats because of a false
positive on the initial blood test."
By dedicating the tremendous resources of time and money to spaying
and neutering rather than mass testing, we will make greater strides
towards solving the underlying problem of cat overpopulation. This has
been most clearly documented by Nathan Winograd in a manual about
feral cat management titled "Compassion is the Way" prepared for the
Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in 2002.
"It costs about $12 per test kit per cat. Some studies claim that
since birth and cat bites are the most common mode of transmission
that FIV is more common where there are large numbers of stray cats.
However, in San Francisco where over 8,000 feral cats have been
trapped, altered, and tested, the incidence rate of positive cats was
shown to be the same for feral cats as it is for the pet cat
population: about one and one-half to three percent of all cats who
are tested.
That is a very low number of cats who test positive, and that is the
first reason why the expense of testing is not cost-effective. Only
about two cats out of one hundred will test positive. A lot of
resources are being spent which could be better used on things that
will impact and improve the lives of cats significantly more than
testing.
In 1999, the San Francisco SPCA spay/neuter clinic altered
approximately 2,000 feral cats. At $12 per test the SPCA spent $24,000
on testing for only about 40 incidents of a positive test. $24,000
could have brought 369 humane cat traps. Or it could have purchased
48,000 pounds of kibble, enough to feed a colony of cats for 31 years.
… The $24,000 could have been used to hire a full-time employee to
trap cats five days a week, eight hours a day and bring them to the
shelter for spay/neuter. If they caught four cats a day that is an
extra 900 cats per year. Or, if it costs $35 per surgery, one could
alter 685 cats. From a resource point of view, testing is wasteful. …
… Besides wasting money and false-positive healthy cats and kittens
being killed, in the end only about 10% of cats who are infected with
FIV actually come down with the disease. 90% - nine out of 10 infected
cats – will lead completely normal lives."
Mr. Winograd expands further:
"Skeptics may disagree. Testing for FIV, this line of thinking goes,
is not only about preventing suffering in infected cats, it is also
about preventing the spread of the disease. But because primary modes
of transmission are bites and births, spaying and neutering alone will
actually go a long way to prevent the spread of FIV because altering
affects both: reducing or eliminating fighting as well as roaming and
mating."
So far I have talked about mass testing but there are certain
circumstances where testing may be recommended. For example, testing
may be recommended by a veterinarian as a part of an effort to
diagnose illness or a foster parent or adoptive parent may wish to
have cats tested if they have resident cats at home or if the cat is
to be housed in a group setting at a shelter. In the case of an
adoptive parent, the test can be offered for a fee that completely
covers the costs involved with drawing the blood and running the test.
It will likely still be cheaper than at a veterinarian's office when
performed at your shelter and if you allow a modest profit it can
provide revenue for your operations.
Regardless of the test result, foster parents, adopters and shelter
administrators should be aware that testing is not a 100% accurate
measure for screening FeLV and FIV and can result in otherwise healthy
animals being killed or otherwise infected animals being adopted. From
the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program's resource sheet regarding
FeLV:
"The blood test itself is quite accurate, but not perfect. Because
cats can be transiently infected, it is possible that a cat will
initially test positive for FeLV, and then recover and test negative a
later date. This is especially likely to occur in otherwise healthy
kittens. In most healthy cat populations FeLV is quite uncommon, and
this leads to an increase in the relative number of false positive
results. In some studies, over half of FeLV positive results obtained
by veterinary hospitals from healthy cats were incorrect.
The blood test may also falsely identify recently infected cats as
negative. To be absolutely certain, cats must be tested 1-3 months
after their last known exposure."
Additionally in the case of FIV, again from the UC Davis Koret Shelter
Medicine Program's resource sheet on FIV:
"Although transmission to kittens at or near the time of birth has
been experimentally reported, in nature this appears to be extremely
uncommon. Kittens born to FIV positive mothers are at low risk for
infection, although they may initially test positive due to the
presence of maternal antibodies…
…The blood test is quite accurate, but false positives and
occasionally false negatives do occur. In healthy, low-risk
populations FIV is quite uncommon, and this leads to an increase in
the relative number of false positive results. The blood test may also
falsely identify recently infected cast as negative. To be absolutely
certain, cats must be tested 1-3 months after their last known
exposure. The test can not be accurately interpreted in young kittens…
…Maternal antibodies may interfere with FIV testing in kittens. The
literature is in disagreement as to when FIV screening may be
performed: maternal antibody interference can rarely occur up to 4
months but has disappeared by 6 months. As mentioned, even in adult
cats infection may take up to 1-3 months to develop, so a final test
should be performed 3 months after the last known exposure to be
absolutely certain."
Clearly your shelter, when running only one test, cannot guarantee the
accuracy, whether the results of a test are positive or negative, for
any animal tested. Re-testing at three months should be recommended in
all cases.
There is simply no reason to kill asymptomatic cats. All sheltered
animals (except in a group housing environment) should be handled as
if they are contagious with URI so it is completely feasible, if you
have a positive case, to house asymptomatic FIV and FeLV positive cats
as they await adoption. Instead of promoting them for adoption as "FIV
positive cats," promote them just as you would any other cat for
adoption, emphasizing their unique personalities and make them
"special reduced cost" adoptions. Disclose their medical status just
as you would with a behavior challenge or other special needs animal
but don't make it the focal point that cat different from the others.
If you have one, don't label your separate area "FIV, FeLV ROOM." Pick
a fun name for the room that doesn't make the disease the center of
attention. If I was placed up for adoption, I surely would not want to
be identified as the "Asthma and Allergy Girl" when there are so many
more things about me that make me special.
As the long term objective of an animal welfare organization, humane
society or SPCA should be to save lives we are clearly duty-bound to
dedicate our resources to where they can touch the lives of the
greatest number of animals in the most significant manner possible.
Discontinuing mass-testing of shelter and feral cats for FeLV and FIV
is the only acceptable course of action, maximizing life-saving by
handling animals and utilizing resources in a manner that best serves
the entire population of animals within a community
Here's the url:
http://network.bestfriends.org/Blogs/PostDetail.aspx?g=3042316787ce4a6e8eb13f7e1c31758d&bp=5244
--
Rescuties - Saving the world, one cat at a time.
http://www.rescuties.org
Vist the Rescuties store and save a kitty life!
http://astore.amazon.com/rescuties-20
Please help George!
http://rescuties.chipin.com/george
I GoodSearch for Rescuties.
Raise money for your favorite charity or school just by searching the
Internet with GoodSearch - www.goodsearch.com - powered by Yahoo!
