Posted on 02/05/2012 5:40:35 AM PST by SJackson
A Lancaster County hunter has been treated for rabies after field dressing a deer Jan. 20 in Valley Township, Chester County. The deer later tested positive for rabies.
"The hunter contacted us about his concerns that the deer was unfit for human consumption," said John Veylupek, a wildlife conservation officer for the Pennsylvania Game Commission. "[He] said that he saw the deer standing in a creek, straining and growling. He thought there was a coyote nearby from the sounds the deer was making."
Having cleaned the deer without wearing gloves and with open scratches on his hand, the hunter was advised to seek post-exposure rabies shots.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
Having cleaned the deer without wearing gloves and with open scratches on his hand pretty much says it all.
this is better than chronic wasting.
which like mad cow and CJ, Chronic wasting has no cure and would eat the guys brain....at least the Rabies can be cured at this stage.
Deciding to take an obviously sick animal says as much.
Yep. He saw all that and THEN still cleaned and dressed the deer? Dummy.
around 20 years ago I started using long shank latex gloves to do the field dressing, not so much for protection but there is often no water to clean off in in the field and it is nice to be able to put ones cold weather gear back on, on a cold day, (I often strip down to my shirt or t-shirt, weather permitting, when gutting a deer....
I am more afraid of tick borne illnesses from the deer.
I watch the DECs area hot spot lists for diseases and know the deer I shoot and the area I hunt in is pretty much disease free.
My thoughts...WHY would you kill and clean an animal that was clearly sick? He should have killed it and then notified the game commission!
He may have been exposed to rabies but, if he actually contracted the disease, he’d be dead.
Where in the article is this backed up with any facts. He shot and cleaned a deer that was found to have rabies, so he was advised to get rabies shots. He had no symptoms so we'll never know if he was actually exposed to the disease. I did a quick check but wasn't able to find the transmission rate for rabies, so I don't know how often diseased blood to open scratch (or even a bite by a diseased animal) will result in rabies if left untreated.
I’m a little embarrassed to admit I believed only quasi-carnivore type animals could get rabies. I just never thought about grazing critters contracting the disease. Interesting.
The headline is misleading. The hunter apparently was merely exposed to rabies.
Actually, if treated promptly with the notoriously painful series of shots (in the shoulder muscles these days, so not nearly as bad as in the old days of stomach muscle injections with a dagger length needle) even someone who has been directly exposed through the bite of a frothing rabid animal will survive. But if untreated it is as bad a way to go as one can possibly imagine. About ten years ago my daughter was bitten by a sickly raccoon and started the series of shots before they tested the animal and found out it was not rabid. Nasty shots but nothing like the old style treatment.
As a doctor friend says:
Ticks are the most dangerous animals in the state of Missouri.
“Bambi Bites Back”?
I believe all mammals can contract rabies. Though deer are considered herbivores, they eat meat on occasion. Birds, insects, occasional carrion.
My guess they wouldn’t check for exposure or transmission. Regardless of the probability of infection, exposure to a fatal disease would be enough to warrant treatment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.