Coyotes that had reportedly bitten a person or domestic animal were 18.2× more likely to be rabid than were coyotes that had not (p<0.0001). Biting as type of contact was reported for 18 coyotes positive rabies test results were found for 7. Likelihood of being rabid was 15.2× (p<0.0001) and 11.9× (p<0.05) higher for coyotes reported with fight contact and unprovoked attack behavior, respectively, than for coyotes with any other reported contact. The proportion of coyotes with positive rabies test results varied by type of contact as follows: fight (5/11), handling (1/26), unprovoked attack (2/4), and unknown (2/47). Of the 111 coyotes submitted for testing, the reported circumstances of potentially infectious contact were as follows: capture (n = 5), dead animal contact (n = 1), fight (n = 11), handling (n = 26), provoked attack (n = 1), specimen preparation (n = 3), unprovoked attack on a human (n = 4), vicinity (n = 5), unknown (n = 47), and other (n = 8). The coyotes in contact with both were 8.6× more likely to be rabid than were those in contact with only 1 or the other (p<0.05). Among the 10 rabid coyotes, 4 were reported to have been in contact with humans and domestic animals. Because a rabid wild animal would go untested if a human or domestic animal had not had potentially infectious contact with it, the 10 coyotes with confirmed rabies likely represented only some portion of all rabid coyotes in Massachusetts during the study period.Īmong 97 nonrabid coyotes, 7 had reportedly been in contact with humans and domestic animals. The public health rabies surveillance system in the United States is passive and relies on interaction of humans or domestic animals with rabies vector species ( 5). The time lag may also be the result of the distinct ecologic niches of these animals coyotes are the top predators in ecosystems, and raccoons are only 1 of several mesocarnivores. The long time before spillover from raccoon to coyote was detected suggests that coyotes might avoid rabid reservoir animals. Within each county, the time between the first identification of RRV in an animal and finding a rabid coyote within that county ranged from 558 to 4,857 days median was 2,799 days. Of the remaining 107 coyotes, 10 (9.0%) were found to be rabid strain typing confirmed all 10 to have had spillover RRV. Of the 111 coyotes submitted for rabies testing, 4 (3.6%) were unsatisfactory because of decomposed brain tissue. From 1985 through 2008, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health tested coyotes by following the standard direct fluorescent antibody testing protocol published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( 4). Rabies in coyotes has emerged in Massachusetts at the same time that coyote and human populations have increased. Because the raccoon rabies virus (RRV) variant is endemic to Massachusetts and spillover into the coyote population occurs ( 3), coyotes are a potential source of rabies exposure for humans. The coyote is highly adaptable and readily tolerates living near humans ( 2). To the Editor: In 1959, coyotes ( Canis latrans) were found in only 3 Massachusetts towns, but by 2007, their population was estimated at 10,000 and they were present throughout the state, except on the islands of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket ( 1).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |