|
(EXTENDED ABSTRACT)
Introduction.
From an historic perspective, national and international animal
health regulations have been directed specifically to the health
and disease concerns for traditional domesticated livestock species.
However, it has long been recognized that many wild mammals and birds
are susceptible to, can be infected by, and can transmit a number of
very serious domestic animal diseases. With increased recognition of
the disease threats of free-ranging wildlife species to animal
agriculture, concern has arisen with respect to the substantial implications
to trade and to the unrestricted international movement of animals and animal products.
Current situation.
However, in modern agriculture internationally, there
is a growing recognition that nontraditional species have
become viable and valuable farmed and agriculturally important livestock.
With this industry in farmed wildlife species the disease potential or threat
from traditional livestock has become an equally vital concern. And, the
distinction between wildlife and domestic livestock and their diseases has
become blurred and unclear when assessing the risk of disease introductions
to our nations and to our industries.
The wildlife industry represents a large, diverse, and
growing concern for animal health officials and livestock
producers. Growth in populations of wildlife and increased
interest in raising traditionally wild animals domestically
has increased interaction and contact with domestic livestock.
This has increased the dangers of disease transmission between both populations.
Inconsistent regulations within and between countries have compounded
the challenges faced by governmental regulators and wildlife owners.
Although the wildlife industry has similar needs for disease control
and identification of animals, captive wildlife are not subjected to
the same regulations, scrutiny, and veterinary care and attention as
traditional livestock. The International Animal Health Code of the OIE, for example,
addresses wildlife diseases only in terms of impact on disease eradication and the
health of domestic livestock. With decreasing prevalence of diseases in domestic
livestock, such as brucellosis, classical swine fever, foot-and-mouth disease, and
tuberculosis, which are targeted for eradication in numerous countries, the only
remaining reservoirs for infection may be free-ranging or captive wildlife populations.
Adequate disease surveillance in wildlife populations is critical to controlling these
and other agriculturally important diseases as well as to the health and welfare of the
wildlife species. Recently, governments have recognized a need to serve both agricultural
and wildlife interests, but these disparate interests provoke a challenge to protect one
without harming the other.
Like traditional animal agriculture, the wildlife industry
in many countries is diverse, rapidly growing, and supported
broadly by numerous advocacy groups, producers, and private owners.
This industry includes production of captive wildlife, free-ranging
and relocated wildlife cherished by sports enthusiasts and environmentalists,
and importers of exotic animals and products. The number and diversity of
captive-held nontraditional agricultural and pet species are dramatically
increased by the millions of exotic animals imported annually. In addition,
free-ranging populations in many countries have expanded because of governmental
and private conservation initiatives; adaptive, natural selection processes to
changing ecologic niches; reduced pressures from hunters and predators; and an
abundance of food.
With changes in the wildlife industry and the expanding popularity of raising
alternative livestock, the clientele of our animal health agencies is changing.
Animal health officials can no longer concentrate solely on producers who raise
cattle, poultry, sheep, and swine, but increasingly are expected to address the
interests and concerns of producers of bison, buffalo, deer, elk, emu, llama,
ostrich, and other captive wildlife. Complicating the protection of the health
of this expanded agricultural livestock industry with its inherent disease risks,
are the exotic animals, including reptiles and amphibians, that are imported into
private collections, pet shops, zoos, and animal parks; many may carry disease
pathogens and vectors of pathogens.
The health impact of wildlife on livestock and of livestock on wildlife has been
expressed in a number of recent and continuing disease events that have underscored
the potential dangers of pathogen transmission.
Conclusion.
Wildlife are potential reservoirs of agriculturally important
diseases to the livestock industry. Likewise, domestic livestock
are potential reservoirs of important diseases to wildlife.
However, despite that potential, but unlikely, adverse impact,
the expanded diversity offered by farmed wildlife on the economics
of agriculture reflect substantial positive benefits. Our animal
industries are "healthier" as a result of this increased diversity.
As surely as humanity will progress into the challenges, changes, and
opportunities of the 21st century, so will animal agriculture progress.
Unquestionably, as the title of my presentation implies, there will be a
substantial impact of wildlife on the health status of our industries.
However, I submit that the connotation of this impact will be both positive
and negative. Our industry, animal agriculture, is no longer confined to
the traditional species or the traditional production parameters and
methodologies. Introduction of new species of farmed animals into our
traditional industry offers new opportunities and new threats. The key
to maximizing the opportunities while minimizing the threats and adverse
impacts lies in comprehensive attention to surveillance and monitoring
practices, and rigorous application of biosecurity practices that should
be common practice to concerned and conscientious producers. In and of
themselves, wildlife are no more dangerous to livestock than livestock are to
wildlife. The dangers lie in lax practices and inadequate attention to accepted
disease prevention and control practices. Opportunities in production agriculture
like opportunities in unrestricted trade are not without risk but the potential
benefits can be substantial.
|
