CHANGES MADE TO THE PET TRAVEL SCHEME in 2014 included laminating passport entries, restricting rabies vaccination to animals at least 12 weeks of age, recording details of the vet issuing the passport and providing a new set of rules for travel with more than five pets.
These changes were implemented to provide a more rigorous system to protect against the illegal smuggling of cats, dogs and ferrets into the country and to protect against outbreaks of disease which specifically place public health at risk.
However, Paula Boyden, veterinary director of Dogs Trust, is concerned that these changes do not go far enough and believes that after relaxation of the rules in 2012 the risk of serious disease such as rabies entering the country has, without doubt, increased.
A platinum members’ webinar organised by The Webinar Vet and led by Paula discussed the implications of changes to the passport scheme since 2012, some of which made for uncomfortable listening. These changes included removing the necessity for serology testing after rabies vaccination, allowing pets to travel three weeks post-rabies vaccination and allowing tapeworm treatment to be administered one to five days prior to travel.
Since these changes to the scheme, the risk of rabies entering the country has increased 60 fold, and now stands at one case every 211 years – and this is assuming 100% compliance with PETS. Worryingly, if compliance drops to only 90%, this risk increases to one case every 170 years.
One of the reasons contributing to this increased risk of rabies is the removal of serology testing from the regulations. From previous serology data we know that large breeds of dogs respond less well to the rabies vaccination when compared to small breeds of dogs, and adult dogs between the ages of one and seven tend to respond better than dogs greater than seven and less than one year of age.
This is relevant as prior to the changes made to PETS in 2011, dogs needed to be at least 10 months old (vaccinate at three months, blood test approximately one month later and travel six months from the date of the successful blood test), whereas under the new regulations they can be as young as 15 weeks, which could mean their response to vaccination may not be as good as older dogs.
There were also some dogs which never gained adequate serology results to travel, meaning there will be a small percentage of vaccinated dogs not protected against rabies.
On a more positive note, rabies cases across Europe have decreased significantly over the past few years with a reported 13,000 cases in 1991 reducing to 5,000 cases in 2001. However, many of the cases reported in 2001 came from Eastern European countries and some of these are now part of the EU. Their borders with non-EU countries also pose a risk and the adequacy of border control at the perimeter of the EU has to be questioned.
Extending the time between tapeworm treatment and entering the UK is also likely to have increased the risk of Echinococcus multilocularis entering the country, potentially endangering public health.
Tapeworm treatment will only kill tapeworms present at the time and extending this time means there is a greater chance of re-infection.
As this is a parasite which has a significant impact on the quality and quantity of life of a human and with Echinococcus multilocularis already knocking on the shores of France, this is a very real risk which must be taken seriously.
PETS compliance problem
An investigation carried out by Dogs Trust into puppy smuggling also demonstrated that compliance with the Pet Travel Scheme is a significant problem. Paula explained there was an overall 60% increase in the number of pets travelling under PETS after changes to the regulations in 2012 but, worryingly, the equivalent increase in Lithuania was 780% and in Hungary 663%, and this only accounts for dogs that are declared and not any puppies smuggled into the UK.
Dogs Trust’s investigation into these countries found PETS was being used as cover to illegally import puppies into the country with under-age puppies entering the UK without the appropriate treatments. They also found unscrupulous vets had been falsifying pet passports allowing for illegal travel. This illegal activity should come as no surprise as the potential to make money from puppy smuggling is huge (for every five puppies smuggled into the country per week, a smuggler can make in the region of £100,000 per year tax-free!).
Dogs Trust also highlighted weaknesses at border control, having been able to bring a soft toy puppy with an implanted microchip across the border into the UK three out of four times without being challenged.
No visual check
Unbelievably, no visual check of the animal is required at the border with microchip scanners being used on the outside of carrier boxes. Once the chip is scanned and is shown to correlate to the number on the passport, that animal (or soft toy in this case) is allowed into the UK.
On the back of these findings, Dogs Trust has compiled a set of urgent recommendations which Paula believes should be implemented to ensure better compliance with PETS, thereby protecting public health and the welfare of travelling animals (many puppies are likely to have travelled for 40 hours without food and water).
These recommendations include banning the import of puppies under six months of age. This should make it easier for border control to spot younger puppies, often eight weeks or less, which are far more attractive to a purchaser and thereby much easier for a puppy smuggler to sell. This, of course, does assume there is a visual check at the border.
Another recommendation is to create a centrally accessible database for animals with microchips and ensuring there is cross agency working to develop an intelligence system and share data. This would make it significantly easier to trace animals if abandoned or track the movement of individuals in the face of a disease outbreak.
Fixed penalty recommendation
Dogs Trust also strongly recommends the introduction of a fixed penalty for not complying with pet passport regulations as, currently, if people are stopped with incorrect paperwork, the only consequence is to either disallow entry into the country and send away the owner with the animal in question, or alternatively the animal can be placed into quarantine until it complies with current regulations.
However, the owner would need to pay all fees associated with quarantine, meaning a number of animals are likely to be abandoned which could eventually lead to their euthanasia. A fixed penalty might at least offer some deterrent if caught as currently there is very little consequence to this illegal trafficking.
Paula also gave guidance on recognising some of the diseases vets may encounter in animals travelling under PETS and offered advice on the route vets need to take if they suspect an illegal landing of an animal.
This was a compelling webinar which opened my eyes to the reality of the risks associated with PETS especially when the system has the potential to be abused both by unscrupulous vets and puppy smugglers.
It is imperative that all small animal vets are aware of any potential issue which could occur as a consequence of PETS, so it can be appropriately managed and reported. This webinar provides an excellent platform from which to learn more, offering information and advice in abundance.
