View Full Version : Salmonella and Reptiles
guidofatherof5
02-03-2013, 10:31 PM
I found this article on "The Reptile Report" and thought I would post a small section of it and offer a link to anyone who wants to read the full article.
"APPA’s 2009 survey indicated that there were approximately 11,000,000 reptiles living as pets in the U.S. Nineteen cases of salmonellosis. Eleven million reptiles. That means that less than one thousandth of one percent of the pet reptiles in this country were a source of laboratory confirmed salmonellosis in 2009."
Salmonella and Reptiles | The Herp Alliance (http://herpalliance.com/2013/01/31/salmonella-and-reptiles/)
Greg'sGarters
02-04-2013, 01:11 AM
Very interesting Steve, I will be able to use this knowledge now when telling people how rare salmonella is among reptiles. Thank you for sharing this!
thamneil
02-04-2013, 01:56 AM
Good information to have.
chris-uk
02-04-2013, 02:00 AM
Of course there are lies, damn lies and statistics...
It doesn't mean salmonella is carried by very few snakes, it means that only a handful of cases of salmonella were reported and followed up to find a source that turned out to be a reptile. Which could mean that many snakes are carrying and the majority of keepers take sensible hygiene precautions, or that they are getting infections and not reporting them, or reporting an infection which is not properly identified.
So before using this report in a persuasive argument you should understand that: there are significant holes in the data which prevents you being able to say that a very small proportion of captive reptiles harbour salmonellosis; the article linked above has been written by a pro-reptile person who is either ignorant of the gaps in their logic, or has written something as deliberately biased as an anti-reptile person would slant it the other way.
The article is a good foundation for an argument, but not difficult to counter.
chris-uk
02-04-2013, 02:14 AM
This article (linked in the comments of the article Steve links to above) is a good source:
AQUA-TERRA-VITA: Exotic Plants and Animals for Aquariums and Terrariums (http://aqua-terra-vita.com/?http://aqua-terra-vita.net/blogger/blog.php?blogId=100&blogCategoryId=99&blogPostId=37)
My main criticism of the original article is that the author didn't grasp the concept that 40,000 lab confirmed cases doesn't conflict with an estimated 70,000 cases caused by reptiles. The apparent discrepancy is due to reporting rates of salmonella.
aSnakeLovinBabe
02-04-2013, 09:53 AM
A few years ago I developed a salmonella infection in my kidneys and bladder. Needless to say it was downright awful. They were fairly certain the source was either tainted food (it began as a stomach illness) , birds, and NOT my reptiles. Salmonella sucks.... And most of the time, it has nothing to do with reptiles... CHICKENS are a huge culprit.
Steveo
02-04-2013, 11:00 AM
I'd be interested to see how many reptiles actually carry salmonella as opposed to how many simply pass it from their food to a person externally.
d_virginiana
02-04-2013, 07:48 PM
The salmonella issue is actually the reason that a lot of people used to justify making selling any turtles/tortoises in NC illegal. There was a case where two teens got a severe case from swimming in a pool with their pet turtle. They don't try to illegalize chicken because one person thought they'd eat it half-raw; what is the sense in illegalizing all turtles because a couple people do stupid things with them?
On a side note, I had pneumonia (from the flu) this fall. I happened to mention to the PA that I kept reptiles, and it took me like 10 minutes to convince the doctor that my lung issues were due to having the flu (which coincided with them beginning) instead of keeping reptiles (which I've done for over a decade). :p
AngelOtter
02-04-2013, 11:57 PM
You can get salmonella from almost any pet, dogs, cats, mice, hamsters, and reptiles. Using it as a point for making reptiles illegal as pets is silly, are we going to ban dogs as well?
Any animal kept in unsanitary conditions can cause health issues in humans.
Steveo
02-05-2013, 09:45 AM
The salmonella issue is actually the reason that a lot of people used to justify making selling any turtles/tortoises in NC illegal. There was a case where two teens got a severe case from swimming in a pool with their pet turtle. They don't try to illegalize chicken because one person thought they'd eat it half-raw; what is the sense in illegalizing all turtles because a couple people do stupid things with them?
NC isn't the only state with turtle laws. Here in CO you can't buy one under, I think, 4 inches. It has been proven that a not insignificant percentage of baby turtles in the pet trade carry salmonella. Still, I think it's a risk people should be allowed to take as long as they're informed about the issue. No pet is 100% safe, and people are still more likely to get salmonella from a bad restaurant than a pet turtle.
Tropical fish can carry tuberculosis, but nobody is banning them.
guidofatherof5
02-05-2013, 09:55 AM
Tropical fish can carry tuberculosis, but nobody is banning them.
Don't give them any ideas. I would bet banning all pets is on paper with organizations somewhere.
They are just waiting for the right time to push it.
chris-uk
02-05-2013, 10:12 AM
Don't give them any ideas. I would bet banning all pets is on paper with organizations somewhere.
They are just waiting for the right time to push it.
There are several groups in the UK with the stated aim of banning the keeping of all pets (then domesticated animals for food). They know they don't stand a hope in hell with cats and dogs, but they keep attacking reptiles as it is the thin end of the wedge and they stand an outside chance of gaining widespread public support. I believe you have more fanatical groups on your side of the pond.
guidofatherof5
02-05-2013, 11:55 AM
There are several groups in the UK with the stated aim of banning the keeping of all pets (then domesticated animals for food). They know they don't stand a hope in hell with cats and dogs, but they keep attacking reptiles as it is the thin end of the wedge and they stand an outside chance of gaining widespread public support. I believe you have more fanatical groups on your side of the pond.
You would be correct.:D
StrmChasr
02-05-2013, 10:49 PM
You would be correct.:D
Yes he would
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.