This has come up several times before, with variations (e.g. all animals treated on intake). There are several significant problems with this approach:

1. It is unlikely to work. The appropriate antibiotic choice, and whether or not antibiotics will be helpful, depend on the presentation of the animal. E.g. I would choose doxycycline for suspected primary Bordetella or Chlamydia infection, but many other antibiotics would be preferred choice for suspected secondary bacterial infection.


2. It goes against well-established guidelines for appropriate antibiotic use, e.g. http://www,aafponline.org/resources/guidelines/antimicrobials.pdf (although designed for cats, these apply equally well to dogs and other pet animals; check out the line up of experts that came together to make these recommendations, and consider all the ways this proposed plan goes against these guidelines).


3. It models sloppy practices for the public. What message are we sending when we send home a shelter pet with a jar of randomly selected antibiotics for administration with no provision for oversight or follow up, or even diagnosis of an illness? The message we generally try to send adopters is that when a pet has an illness, it needs to be seen and treated under the direction of a veterinarian. A much better choice would be to work with local clinics to help clients get animals seen for a reduced price or free, or work with a shelter pet insurance program so that most costs are covered.


4. It is dangerous. The risk is not just in selecting for drug resistant Bordetella, but for other drug resistant pathogens such as Salmonella. In an outbreak of multi-drug resistant Salmonella typhimurium that hospitalized a number of adopters of shelter cats (and almost killed several) drug treatment for URI was a risk factor for feline infection, and the bacteria was resistant to the most commonly used antibiotics for URI.

Rather than going to prophylactic or blanket antibiotic treatment, a more effective and responsible strategy would be to invest in diagnostics to figure out what is going on, and what interventions in terms of husbandry, vaccination or effective treatment are likely to help. (And then make those changes J ) A respiratory panel from a handful of acutely affected dogs, e.g. at the Lucy Whittier Lab at UC Davis, would be a good start. Although not dirt cheap ($90 per panel), this could well end up costing less than reams of antibiotics, ineffective treatment, lost adoptions, loss of public trust etc.…and one outbreak of drug resistant illness in people can set a shelter back tens of thousands of dollars easily. If the respiratory panel is not diagnostic, necropsy or at least histopathology on lung samples from dogs that happen to be euthanized with consistent signs would give you a good chance at a definitive diagnosis.

We also have info on the website on antibiotic use in shelters:

http://www.sheltermedicine.com/portal/is_antibiotic_use_primer.shtml#top3