"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Meerkats didn’t have rabies

BY DAVID HAWLEY AND MEGGEN LINDSAY
Minneapolis Pioneer Press

The five meerkats euthanized Thursday at the Minnesota Zoo tested negative
this morning for rabies, two days after one of them bit a child who
reached into their exhibit.

One of the animals bit a 9-year-old girl who had reached over a Plexiglas
barrier in an attempt to pet them.

The bite broke the girl's skin but did not result in a major injury, zoo
officials said. As a precaution, however, all five meerkats on display
were destroyed to be tested for rabies.

"It is our policy, always, to err on the side of safety," said Sue Gergen,
communications director for the zoo in Apple Valley.

Gergen said there was no way to determine which meerkat had bitten the
child, so all had to be destroyed and tested.

The child reportedly climbed up on simulated rocks to reach through a
small gap between a wall and the top of a Plexiglas window at the exhibit,
Gergen said. The area was posted with signs that told visitors to stay off
the rocks, she added.

Nonetheless, Gergen said the exhibit will be closed and evaluated for
public safety before it is reopened. The zoo has another troop of
meerkats, including some that were born in its own breeding program.

Gergen said the decision to euthanize the five animals was required after
the girl declined to undergo a six-shot series of injections for rabies.
The child's parents also do not want her treated unless it is necessary,
Gergen said.

The action also was required by Minnesota Department of Health rules,
Gergen added.

The girl and her parents were not identified.

Meerkats, which are native to arid regions in Africa, are burrowing
animals related to the mongoose. Energetic and inquisitive, they were
popularized by the hyperactive character Timon in the Disney animated film
"The Lion King." The Minnesota Zoo meerkat exhibit opened in 2001 and has
been a visitor favorite since among children.

"This was a very unfortunate thing, very sad," Gergen said. "I can't
remember the last time something like this has happened, and all of us
feel bad about it."

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinci...s/15199813.htm


I suspect the Zoo's lawyer recommended immediate testing of the Meerkats as
a precaution to mitigate damages in the lawsuit that is certain to be filed
soon by the child's parents. Are not the rock wall and the Meerkats an
attractive nuisance and the opening large enough for a child's hand to pass
through, obvious negligence on the part of the Zoo? I suspect lawyers on
both sides are already in negotiations.

Tom G.

"Tom G" wrote in message
news:CaxCg.9024$7m5.6923@trnddc05...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Meerkats didn't have rabies

BY DAVID HAWLEY AND MEGGEN LINDSAY
Minneapolis Pioneer Press

The five meerkats euthanized Thursday at the Minnesota Zoo tested
negative this morning for rabies, two days after one of them bit a child
who reached into their exhibit.

One of the animals bit a 9-year-old girl who had reached over a Plexiglas
barrier in an attempt to pet them.

The bite broke the girl's skin but did not result in a major injury, zoo
officials said. As a precaution, however, all five meerkats on display
were destroyed to be tested for rabies.

"It is our policy, always, to err on the side of safety," said Sue
Gergen, communications director for the zoo in Apple Valley.

Gergen said there was no way to determine which meerkat had bitten the
child, so all had to be destroyed and tested.

The child reportedly climbed up on simulated rocks to reach through a
small gap between a wall and the top of a Plexiglas window at the
exhibit, Gergen said. The area was posted with signs that told visitors
to stay off the rocks, she added.

Nonetheless, Gergen said the exhibit will be closed and evaluated for
public safety before it is reopened. The zoo has another troop of
meerkats, including some that were born in its own breeding program.

Gergen said the decision to euthanize the five animals was required after
the girl declined to undergo a six-shot series of injections for rabies.
The child's parents also do not want her treated unless it is necessary,
Gergen said.

The action also was required by Minnesota Department of Health rules,
Gergen added.

The girl and her parents were not identified.

Meerkats, which are native to arid regions in Africa, are burrowing
animals related to the mongoose. Energetic and inquisitive, they were
popularized by the hyperactive character Timon in the Disney animated
film "The Lion King." The Minnesota Zoo meerkat exhibit opened in 2001
and has been a visitor favorite since among children.

"This was a very unfortunate thing, very sad," Gergen said. "I can't
remember the last time something like this has happened, and all of us
feel bad about it."

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinci...s/15199813.htm


I suspect the Zoo's lawyer recommended immediate testing of the Meerkats
as a precaution to mitigate damages in the lawsuit that is certain to be
filed soon by the child's parents. Are not the rock wall and the
Meerkats an attractive nuisance and the opening large enough for a child's
hand to pass through, obvious negligence on the part of the Zoo? I
suspect lawyers on both sides are already in negotiations.

Tom G.

I should probably ask my cat's vet about this: I've never understood why
animals need to be killed in order to test for rabies. Anyone know?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Tom G" wrote in message
news:CaxCg.9024$7m5.6923@trnddc05...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Meerkats didn't have rabies

BY DAVID HAWLEY AND MEGGEN LINDSAY
Minneapolis Pioneer Press

The five meerkats euthanized Thursday at the Minnesota Zoo tested
negative this morning for rabies, two days after one of them bit a child
who reached into their exhibit.

One of the animals bit a 9-year-old girl who had reached over a
Plexiglas barrier in an attempt to pet them.

The bite broke the girl's skin but did not result in a major injury, zoo
officials said. As a precaution, however, all five meerkats on display
were destroyed to be tested for rabies.

"It is our policy, always, to err on the side of safety," said Sue
Gergen, communications director for the zoo in Apple Valley.

Gergen said there was no way to determine which meerkat had bitten the
child, so all had to be destroyed and tested.

The child reportedly climbed up on simulated rocks to reach through a
small gap between a wall and the top of a Plexiglas window at the
exhibit, Gergen said. The area was posted with signs that told visitors
to stay off the rocks, she added.

Nonetheless, Gergen said the exhibit will be closed and evaluated for
public safety before it is reopened. The zoo has another troop of
meerkats, including some that were born in its own breeding program.

Gergen said the decision to euthanize the five animals was required
after the girl declined to undergo a six-shot series of injections for
rabies. The child's parents also do not want her treated unless it is
necessary, Gergen said.

The action also was required by Minnesota Department of Health rules,
Gergen added.

The girl and her parents were not identified.

Meerkats, which are native to arid regions in Africa, are burrowing
animals related to the mongoose. Energetic and inquisitive, they were
popularized by the hyperactive character Timon in the Disney animated
film "The Lion King." The Minnesota Zoo meerkat exhibit opened in 2001
and has been a visitor favorite since among children.

"This was a very unfortunate thing, very sad," Gergen said. "I can't
remember the last time something like this has happened, and all of us
feel bad about it."

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinci...s/15199813.htm


I suspect the Zoo's lawyer recommended immediate testing of the Meerkats
as a precaution to mitigate damages in the lawsuit that is certain to be
filed soon by the child's parents. Are not the rock wall and the
Meerkats an attractive nuisance and the opening large enough for a
child's hand to pass through, obvious negligence on the part of the Zoo?
I suspect lawyers on both sides are already in negotiations.

Tom G.

I should probably ask my cat's vet about this: I've never understood why
animals need to be killed in order to test for rabies. Anyone know?



Time. Otherwise the animals have to be quarantined for 6 weeks or so.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote...
I should probably ask my cat's vet about this: I've never understood why
animals need to be killed in order to test for rabies. Anyone know?



CalifBill wrote:
Time. Otherwise the animals have to be quarantined for 6 weeks or so.



That's the first of two ways to test for rabies: wait for
the animal to show the disease, or wait long enough that
it's certain he won't.

Two, examine several hundred tissue samples taken from brain
& spinal cord. It might be possible to biopsy them instead
of killing the animal, but punching out chunks of brain like
with an apple corer is generally not going to be good for you.

And the poster who stated that no human being has ever
survived rabies is correct. There are six reported cases
where people survived "the onset of rabies-like symptoms"
but they had acquired resistance through exposure... not a
recommended procedure.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabie...ry/nathist.htm

Rabies is a death sentence, and it's a horrible, very
painful, ugly death.

DSK

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 07:35:03 -0400, DSK wrote:


And the poster who stated that no human being has ever survived rabies is
correct. There are six reported cases where people survived "the onset of
rabies-like symptoms" but they had acquired resistance through exposure...
not a recommended procedure.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabie...ry/nathist.htm

Rabies is a death sentence, and it's a horrible, very painful, ugly death.

True enough, and many might be surprised the most common source of rabies
is the bat.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/rabie...bies/bats&.htm

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Tom G" wrote in message
news:CaxCg.9024$7m5.6923@trnddc05...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Meerkats didn't have rabies

BY DAVID HAWLEY AND MEGGEN LINDSAY
Minneapolis Pioneer Press

The five meerkats euthanized Thursday at the Minnesota Zoo tested
negative this morning for rabies, two days after one of them bit a child
who reached into their exhibit.

One of the animals bit a 9-year-old girl who had reached over a Plexiglas
barrier in an attempt to pet them.

The bite broke the girl's skin but did not result in a major injury, zoo
officials said. As a precaution, however, all five meerkats on display
were destroyed to be tested for rabies.

"It is our policy, always, to err on the side of safety," said Sue
Gergen, communications director for the zoo in Apple Valley.

Gergen said there was no way to determine which meerkat had bitten the
child, so all had to be destroyed and tested.

The child reportedly climbed up on simulated rocks to reach through a
small gap between a wall and the top of a Plexiglas window at the
exhibit, Gergen said. The area was posted with signs that told visitors
to stay off the rocks, she added.

Nonetheless, Gergen said the exhibit will be closed and evaluated for
public safety before it is reopened. The zoo has another troop of
meerkats, including some that were born in its own breeding program.

Gergen said the decision to euthanize the five animals was required after
the girl declined to undergo a six-shot series of injections for rabies.
The child's parents also do not want her treated unless it is necessary,
Gergen said.

The action also was required by Minnesota Department of Health rules,
Gergen added.

The girl and her parents were not identified.

Meerkats, which are native to arid regions in Africa, are burrowing
animals related to the mongoose. Energetic and inquisitive, they were
popularized by the hyperactive character Timon in the Disney animated
film "The Lion King." The Minnesota Zoo meerkat exhibit opened in 2001
and has been a visitor favorite since among children.

"This was a very unfortunate thing, very sad," Gergen said. "I can't
remember the last time something like this has happened, and all of us
feel bad about it."

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinci...s/15199813.htm


I suspect the Zoo's lawyer recommended immediate testing of the Meerkats
as a precaution to mitigate damages in the lawsuit that is certain to be
filed soon by the child's parents. Are not the rock wall and the
Meerkats an attractive nuisance and the opening large enough for a child's
hand to pass through, obvious negligence on the part of the Zoo? I
suspect lawyers on both sides are already in negotiations.

Tom G.

I should probably ask my cat's vet about this: I've never understood why
animals need to be killed in order to test for rabies. Anyone know?

They need to look for the virus in tissue samples, it may not show up in
blood/urine/etc. tests. Rabies kill imminently (unless vaccine shots are
given immediately), it's a very bad stuff.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Tom G" wrote in message
news:CaxCg.9024$7m5.6923@trnddc05...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Meerkats didn't have rabies

BY DAVID HAWLEY AND MEGGEN LINDSAY
Minneapolis Pioneer Press

The five meerkats euthanized Thursday at the Minnesota Zoo tested
negative this morning for rabies, two days after one of them bit a child
who reached into their exhibit.

One of the animals bit a 9-year-old girl who had reached over a
Plexiglas barrier in an attempt to pet them.

The bite broke the girl's skin but did not result in a major injury, zoo
officials said. As a precaution, however, all five meerkats on display
were destroyed to be tested for rabies.

"It is our policy, always, to err on the side of safety," said Sue
Gergen, communications director for the zoo in Apple Valley.

Gergen said there was no way to determine which meerkat had bitten the
child, so all had to be destroyed and tested.

The child reportedly climbed up on simulated rocks to reach through a
small gap between a wall and the top of a Plexiglas window at the
exhibit, Gergen said. The area was posted with signs that told visitors
to stay off the rocks, she added.

Nonetheless, Gergen said the exhibit will be closed and evaluated for
public safety before it is reopened. The zoo has another troop of
meerkats, including some that were born in its own breeding program.

Gergen said the decision to euthanize the five animals was required
after the girl declined to undergo a six-shot series of injections for
rabies. The child's parents also do not want her treated unless it is
necessary, Gergen said.

The action also was required by Minnesota Department of Health rules,
Gergen added.

The girl and her parents were not identified.

Meerkats, which are native to arid regions in Africa, are burrowing
animals related to the mongoose. Energetic and inquisitive, they were
popularized by the hyperactive character Timon in the Disney animated
film "The Lion King." The Minnesota Zoo meerkat exhibit opened in 2001
and has been a visitor favorite since among children.

"This was a very unfortunate thing, very sad," Gergen said. "I can't
remember the last time something like this has happened, and all of us
feel bad about it."

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinci...s/15199813.htm


I suspect the Zoo's lawyer recommended immediate testing of the Meerkats
as a precaution to mitigate damages in the lawsuit that is certain to be
filed soon by the child's parents. Are not the rock wall and the
Meerkats an attractive nuisance and the opening large enough for a
child's hand to pass through, obvious negligence on the part of the Zoo?
I suspect lawyers on both sides are already in negotiations.

Tom G.

I should probably ask my cat's vet about this: I've never understood why
animals need to be killed in order to test for rabies. Anyone know?
The only known quick test is to use brain tissue, which requires killing the
animal. Sad thing is, this could have been prevented by the kid taking the
shot series, which do not even have to be "belly" shots anymore, and
therefore not very painful, and VERY low risk. Parents do not want the kid
to learn anything from this except nothing is her fault. Dan

Tom G wrote:
I suspect the Zoo's lawyer recommended immediate testing of the Meerkats as
a precaution to mitigate damages in the lawsuit that is certain to be filed
soon by the child's parents. Are not the rock wall and the Meerkats an
attractive nuisance and the opening large enough for a child's hand to pass
through, obvious negligence on the part of the Zoo?

By the same logic, a cliff is also an attractive nuisance.

The idea that one should be allowed to wander thru life like
a retard, sticking fingers into electric sockets and putting
sand into transmission gears, and have everybody else pay
the consequences, is really stupid & destructive.

I suggest we take all lawyers who support this idea out and
kill them. It's in Shakespeare.

DSK