* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Organization of wildlife disease services in the United States
Chagas disease wikipedia , lookup
Onchocerciasis wikipedia , lookup
Schistosomiasis wikipedia , lookup
Middle East respiratory syndrome wikipedia , lookup
Marburg virus disease wikipedia , lookup
Neglected tropical diseases wikipedia , lookup
African trypanosomiasis wikipedia , lookup
Eradication of infectious diseases wikipedia , lookup
Leptospirosis wikipedia , lookup
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 1988, 7 (4), 797-805. Organization of wildlife disease services in the United States J.W. GLOSSER * and V.F. NETTLES ** Summary: Wildlife disease services in the United States are provided by a broad network of organizations that include state and Federal fish and wildlife agencies, public health agencies, and agricultural agencies. These agencies collaborate with each other and with universities and other entities. A relationship which has considerably advanced animal health in the United States involves the collaboration of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS). KEYWORDS: Disease control - Governmental agencies - Research - USA - Wild animals. INTRODUCTION A recent survey by the US Department of the Interior (USDI) revealed that wildlifeassociated recreation accounts for the spending of $55.4 billion annually in the United States (18). Each year, one of every two adult Americans participates in some form of outdoor activity involving fish and wildlife, making wildlife enjoyment the leading sports activity in the nation. T h e importance of wildlife to American citizens has resulted in a b r o a d range of interests for maintaining its well-being. P r i m a r y responsibility for the health of wildlife in the United States resides with the USDI's Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and with the fish and wildlife agencies in the individual states. However, diseases of wildlife can directly affect the health of h u m a n s and domestic animals, so Federal and state public health organizations and agricultural agencies are engaged in wildlife disease research, diagnostic investigations, epidemiological studies, and control programs. In all, there are three Federal agencies and more t h a n 150 state or territorial fish and wildlife agencies, agricultural agencies and also public health agencies which carry out activities related to wildlife diseases. M a n y efforts are collaborative and may include scientists from universities, zoological facilities, and even the U S Armed Forces. The breadth of this interest is illustrated by noting the origin of recent articles on wildlife disease in a sample of popular scientific journals (Table I). Most articles were collaborative efforts a m o n g two or three groups. This paper outlines the organization of this vast network of interests and provides information on the * Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D . C . 20250, U S A . ** Director, Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, G A 30602, U S A . 798 TABLE I Sources of recent fish and wildlife disease information pertaining to Lists A and B of the OIE as obtained from a sampling of scientific journals* in the USA (1983-1988) Source USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratories and/or APHIS Field Personnel Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study Animal Disease Research Unit Animal Parasite Institute Arthropod-borne Animal Disease Center National Animal Disease Center Plum Island Animal Disease Center Southeast Poultry Disease Research Laboratory USDI National Wildlife Health Research Center Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units National Fish Health Research Center USDHHS Centers for Disease Control State fish and wildlife agencies (states given in parenthesis) Disease topic African swine fever, brucellosis, leptospirosis, Newcastle disease, porcine brucellosis, Pseudorabies, rabies, tuberculosis, vesicular stomatitis Bluetongue, brucellosis, fowl cholera, fowl pox, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, leptospirosis, mycoplasmosis, porcine brucellosis, Pseudorabies, trichinellosis, vesicular stomatitis Anaplasmosis, babesiosis Trichinellosis Anaplasmosis, bluetongue, vesicular stomatitis Brucellosis, fowl cholera, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, leptospirosis Foot and mouth disease, heartwater Mycoplasmosis Avian tuberculosis, duck virus enteritis, fowl cholera, fowl pox Equine encephalomyelitis Brucellosis, fowl cholera, infectious pancreatic necrosis virus, yersiniosis Infectious hematopoietic necrosis, pseudomonosis, renibacteriosis, viral hemorrhagic septicemia, yersiniosis Fowl cholera, rabies, vesicular stomatitis Anaplasmosis (AK, NE), bluetongue (AK, CA, KY, NE, OK, WY), brucellosis (AK, AR, CA, MN, MO, NE), dermatophilosis (WY), duck virus enteritis (CA), equine rhinopneumonitis (CA), fowl cholera (IL), fowl pox (CA, OR), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (AK, CA, MN), leptospirosis (AK, AZ, CA, MN), * American Journal of Veterinary Research, American Journal of Public Health, A vian Diseases, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Journal of Parasitology, Journal of Wildlife Management, Journal of Wildlife Diseases, Proceedings of the United States Animal Health Association, Wildlife Society Bulletin. 799 TABLE I Source (contd.) Disease topic malignant catarrhal fever (CA, WY), mycoplasmosis (CA), Pseudorabies (AZ), pulmonary adenomatosis (CA), Q fever (AK, CA), rabies (AK), renibacteriosis (NY), trichinellosis (AZ, PA), tularemia (AK), vesicular stomatitis (AZ, CA, CO, WY), visna/maedi (AK) State agricultural agencies Anaplasmosis (WA), anthrax (CO), bluetongue (GA, WA), brucellosis (CA, GA, OK), equine encephalomyelitis (NJ), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (GA, WA), leptospirosis (GA, WA), malignant catarrhal fever (OK, WY), mycoplasmosis (CA), trichinellosis (IL), tuberculosis (CO, SD), vesicular stomatitis (WY), visna/maedi (WA), yersiniosis (IL) State public health agencies Universities Johne's disease (OH), rabies (CA, KY, NY) Anaplasmosis (ID, NE, WA), anthrax (CO), avian tuberculosis (IA), bluetongue (AL, CA, CO, FL, GA, KY, NE, OK, TX, WA, WY), brucellosis (AL, CA, MO, NE, OK), dermatophilosis (WY), duck virus enteritis (CA, WI), equine rhinopneumonitis (NY), fowl cholera (CA, MN, WY), fowl pox (KY, OR), fowl typhoid (WI), heartwater (CA), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (KY, OH, OR, WA), infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (FL, MD), Johne's disease (CO, CT, OH), leptospirosis (AK, AR, CA, MD, OH, OK, OR, TN, WA), malignant catarrhal fever (OK), mycoplasmosis (CA, WI), myxobolosis (PA), Newcastle disease (WI), Pseudorabies (IA, TN), psittacosis (CA, ID, TX), rabies (CA, TN), trichinellosis (CA, GA, IA, PA, TX), tuberculosis (CO, IA), tularemia (AR, TN), visna/maedi (WA), yersiniosis (GA) Others Bluetongue, brucellosis, equine encephalomyelitis, equine rhinopneumonitis, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, leptospirosis, malignant catarrhal fever, rabies, tularemia cooperative relationship between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS), an effort that has greatly enhanced animal health in the United States. W I L D L I F E D I S E A S E A C T I V I T I E S IN T H E F I S H A N D W I L D L I F E A G E N C I E S T h e U S F W S has several laboratories which investigate fish and wildlife diseases. These laboratories place special emphasis o n the health of migratory birds and endangered wildlife species, since these animals are the major regulatory responsibility of the U S F W S . 800 The National Wildlife Health Research Center ( N W H R C ) , Madison, Wisconsin, is a focal point for investigating diseases of waterfowl and endangered mammals and birds, particularly in relation to large-scale die-offs (13). Most of the N W H R C ' s work is directed toward national wildlife refuges where high concentrations of waterfowl intensify disease problems. This laboratory also has the capability of working with resident wildlife. In addition, services to other Federal agencies, state fish and wildlife agencies, and private landowners are available u p o n request. The U S F W S operates the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, a large research facility at Laurel, Maryland, where reproductive studies are conducted t o enhance and replenish endangered species. This laboratory is the leader in studying how wildlife is affected by pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, and other pollutants. The Center performs work that is national in scope and has several field stations located in other areas of the nation. The National Fish Health Center, Leetown, West Virginia, also is under the auspices of the U S F W S . This laboratory is engaged in diagnostic work and research on a variety of fish diseases and parasites, with special emphasis on the diseases and parasites of a n a d r o m o u s and cold-water fishes. Unfortunately, these agencies cannot fund wildlife disease research and investigation capabilities on the scale needed. To utilize limited resources efficiently, a cooperative approach has thus been developed. The two most successful of these cooperative projects have been the S C W D S at the University of Georgia and the Southeastern Cooperative Fish Disease Study at A u b u r n University in A l a b a m a . Another state cooperative project is the Northeastern Research Center for Wildlife Diseases at the University of Connecticut at Storrs. Some state fish and wildlife agencies have disease investigation laboratories, staff veterinarians, or both. Alaska, California, Florida, Michigan, N o r t h D a k o t a , and Wyoming employ veterinarians, and several other states have disease specialists. Other state fish and wildlife agencies rely on formal or informal relationships with universities, state diagnostic laboratories, and various sources in the medical community to help handle their disease problems. M u c h of the current knowledge of wildlife and fish diseases has been acquired through the initiative of state wildlife and fish biologists who have collaborated with other animal health experts when diseases were encountered. W I L D L I F E D I S E A S E A C T I V I T I E S IN P U B L I C H E A L T H A G E N C I E S Public health authorities become involved with wildlife disease activities because of such zoonoses as rabies, tularemia, sylvatic plague, Rocky M o u n t a i n spotted fever (RMSF), brucellosis, arboviral encephalitides, leptospirosis, Lyme disease, and trichinellosis. The interest of public health agencies is manifest primarily in diagnostics and epidemiology of wildlife diseases. At the Federal level, the US Department of Health and H u m a n Services ( U S D H H S ) maintains specialized disease laboratories and epidemiologists at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia. When unexplained illness occurs in h u m a n s , the C D C can quickly mobilize a team of experts to conduct a field investigation to examine any possible role that wildlife may play in the disease. Such epidemiological studies usually are performed in collaboration with the state public health and the state and Federal fish and wildlife authorities. 801 State public health agencies also study wildlife diseases that affect the h u m a n population and often provide laboratory tests for the most notable zoonoses (rabies, tularemia, plague, and R M S F ) . These agencies occasionally conduct field projects such as the current rabies control research project being carried out by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. In this project, raccoons are being trapped and hand-vaccinated in a n 8.3 x 33.3 k m zone to stop the spread of rabies into the Delmarva Peninsula. 2 W I L D L I F E D I S E A S E A C T I V I T I E S IN A G R I C U L T U R A L A G E N C I E S Just as efforts to control h u m a n diseases may depend o n knowledge of wildlife diseases, so efforts to protect the health of livestock and poultry frequently require extensive knowledge of wildlife disease. State and Federal agricultural officials recognize that success or failure of livestock and poultry disease control or eradication programs may depend u p o n the occurrence of such diseases in wild animals either as principal, reservoir, or amplifying hosts. Knowledge of the role of wildlife in disease transmission is especially critical when exotic animal diseases are introduced and eradication is contemplated. T h e U S D A ' s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has made substantial preparation to address wildlife concerns if a foreign animal disease is introduced. A P H I S maintains formal agreements to cooperate with Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies in wildlife disease investigations. A P H I S has also incorporated wildlife expertise into the organizational structure of its Regional Emergency Animal Disease Eradication Organization ( R E A D E O ) . The U S D A is involved in many other ways with wildlife disease research and diagnostic investigations. U S D A laboratories such as the National Veterinary Services Laboratories, the National Animal Disease Center, the P l u m Island Animal Disease Center, the A r t h r o p o d - b o r n e Animal Diseases Research Center, the US Livestock Insects L a b o r a t o r y , and others all provide specialized services and evaluate certain aspects of diseases in wildlife. Epidemiologists within U S D A often include wildlife in their investigations of domestic animal diseases, and the U S D A may fund wildlife disease research with other organizations. Some examples of special projects are studies which examined brucellosis in elk (Cervus canadensis) and bison (Bison bison). These studies, conducted in conjunction with the Wyoming Department of G a m e and Fish and with Texas A & M University, showed that elk and bison can maintain Brucella abortus and transmit the disease to cattle (2, 17). Studies on the efficacy of remote vaccination of elk and bison with pelleted B. abortus vaccine are currently being evaluated. In another study, the U S D A is cooperating with the San Diego Z o o in surveillance of exotic wildlife in zoos for malignant catarrhal fever (8). State agricultural agencies share concerns about the potential impacts of wildlife disease on animal health p r o g r a m s . These agencies generally do not have specialized units or organizations to work with wildlife diseases, but they contribute greatly to the wildlife disease investigational network t h r o u g h their state veterinary diagnostic laboratories. Frequently, the index case of a wildlife morbidity or mortality incident is diagnosed by personnel at state agricultural agencies. Additional contributions provided by these agencies include serological testing of samples from wildlife and, 802 in many instances, assistance in the development of microbiological and toxicological tests for use in surveys of wildlife populations. COOPERATION BETWEEN APHIS AND T H E SCWDS The beneficial interaction of agricultural agencies and wildlife-oriented entities is best illustrated by the long-standing cooperative relationship between the U S D A ' s A P H I S and the S C W D S . A n early illustration of the benefits of this relationship occurred during an outbreak of viscerotropic velogenic Newcastle disease (VVND) in California, Florida, and Texas in 1971-1973. After a national emergency was declared, a controversy ensued concerning the assumption that V V N D had become established in free-flying birds, thus making control or eradication impossible. In response to opposition to ongoing poultry depopulation, arrangements were made to cooperate with SCWDS in assessing free-flying bird involvement. Laboratory tests showed t h a t wild birds were neither reservoirs nor disseminators of the disease and that eradication could be accomplished. In 1978, A P H I S entered into a cooperative agreement with SCWDS for the purpose of integrating wildlife disease surveillance capabilities into established domestic animal health programs (7). This long-standing agreement represents an unprecedented merger of domestic livestock and wildlife interests and is focused on achieving the following objectives: 1. to determine the interrelationships of transmissible diseases between wild and domestic animals; 2. to assist A P H I S in surveillance for foreign animal diseases; 3. to serve A P H I S in an advisory capacity on wildlife management and its relationship to diseases of domestic animals; 4. to act as liaison among state, Federal, and private sectors responsible for the health of the nation's domestic livestock, poultry, and wildlife resources. Through the A P H I S / S C W D S cooperative agreement, the U S D A has gained much information about the relationship of diseases of domestic animals and wildlife. For example, national surveillance of wild swine (Sus scrofa) revealed that some populations are infected with Brucella suis ( 1 , 20) and Pseudorabies (10), but hog cholera virus is not residual in wild swine. Surveillance of wild swine and axis deer (Axis axis) conducted in conjunction with Mycobacterium bovis eradication from cattle in Hawaii revealed that tuberculosis could be contracted by association with infected cattle (3). Once infected cattle were removed from the range, however, maintenance of M. bovis infections in wild swine and axis deer was not evident. Some other topics addressed by A P H I S and S C W D S included the survey of remnant wild swine populations in Haiti as possible reservoirs for African swine fever; the epidemiology of vesicular stomatitis in an enzootic focus on Ossabaw Island, Georgia (4, 14, 15, 16); a survey of wild mammals as a possible source of the cattle fever tick along the Texas/Mexico border (5, 6); a survey of free-flying psittacine and native birds as a potential source of recent VVND outbreaks in California, Florida, and Hawaii; an assessment of small rodents and birds as possible sources of Salmonella, Pasteurella, and Mycoplasma infections around poultry farms; and the development of a model for state regulations pertaining to captive wild and exotic animals. 803 The A P H I S / S C W D S relationship has proven especially helpful in preparation for emergency outbreaks. More than 90 Foreign Animal Disease Diagnosticians have been trained in S C W D S seminars o n wildlife biology and c o m m o n native diseases of wildlife. M a p s depicting the geographic distribution and estimated population density of all native wild ungulates that would be susceptible to foot and m o u t h disease, rinderpest, heartwater, and other diseases were prepared in 1982 and are being updated. During the outbreak of lethal H 5 N 2 avian influenza in 1983-1984 in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey, the S C W D S and researchers at St. J u d e Children's Research Hospital tested free-flying birds associated with infected poultry in the quarantine zone and found that the lethal H 5 N 2 strain was not being disseminated from farm to farm by wild birds. The survey also showed that waterfowl were not serving as a latent reservoir for this m u t a n t strain even though waterfowl harbored other forms of avian influenza virus (9, 11, 12, 19). These facts were important in convincing poultry growers that eradication was a feasible goal and that vigorous precautions by personnel were essential in stopping virus spread. The relationship of A P H I S and the S C W D S has greatly advanced the knowledge of animal health in the United States and illustrates the recognition of c o m m o n interests which characterizes the US approach to wildlife disease services. The extensive network of entities involved in wildlife disease services brings a broad range of expertise to bear on the subject a n d , working collaboratively, these entities have rapidly advanced knowledge on fish and wildlife diseases within the United States and should continue to d o so in years to come. ORGANISATION DES SERVICES SANITAIRES RESPONSABLES DE LA FAUNE SAUVAGE AUX ÉTATS-UNIS. - J.W. Glosser et V.F. Nettles. Résumé : Aux Etats-Unis, les problèmes sanitaires de la faune sauvage sont pris en charge par un vaste réseau d'administrations parmi lesquelles figurent, au niveau des Etats et au niveau fédéral, les services responsables des poissons et de la faune sauvage, de la santé publique et de l'agriculture. Ces administrations collaborent entre elles ainsi qu 'avec les universités et d'autres institutions. La santé animale a fait des progrès considérables aux Etats-Unis, notamment grâce à la relation de collaboration active entre le Département de l'Agriculture des Etats-Unis (USDA) et la Section d'étude en coopération sur les maladies de la faune sauvage dans le Sud-Est («Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study», SCWDS). MOTS-CLÉS : Administrations publiques - Animaux sauvages - Etats-Unis Prophylaxie - Recherche. * 804 ORGANIZACIÓN DE LOS SERVICIOS SANITARIOS RESPONSABLES DE LA FAUNA SALVAJE EN LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS. - J.W. Glosser y V.F. Nettles. Resumen: En los Estados Unidos, los problemas sanitarios de la fauna salvaje están a cargo de una amplia red de administraciones entre las que figuran los servicios estatales y federales responsables de los peces y la fauna salvaje, salud pública y agricultura. Estas administraciones colaboran no solo entre ellas, sino también con las universidades y con otras instituciones. La sanidad animal ha realizado considerables progresos en los Estados Unidos, gracias sobre todo a la relación de colaboración activa entre el Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos (USDA) y la División de estudios en cooperación sobre las enfermedades de la fauna salvaje en el Sudeste («Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study», SCWDS). PALABRAS CLAVE: Administraciones públicas - Animales salvajes Control - Estados Unidos - Investigación. * * * REFERENCES 1. CORN J . L . , SWIDEREK P.K., BLACKBURN B.O., ERIKSON G.A., THIERMANN A.B. & NETTLES V.F. (1968). - Survey of selected diseases in wild swine in Texas. J. Am. vet. med. Ass., Î 8 9 , 1029-1032. 2. DAVIS D. (1987). — Brucellosis research in captive bison. In E.T. Thorne et al., Report of the Committee on Wildlife Diseases. Proc. US Anim. Hlth Ass., 9 1 , 100-101. 3. ESSEY M.A., PAYNE R . L . , HIMES E.M. & LUCHSINGER D. (1981). - Bovine tuberculosis surveys of axis deer and feral swine on the Hawaiian Island of Molokai. Proc. US Anim. Hlth Ass., 8 5 , 538-549. 4. FLETCHER W.O., STALLKNECHT D.E. & JENNEY E.W. (1985). - Serologic surveillance for vesicular stomatitis virus on Ossabaw Island, Georgia. J. Wildl. Dis., 2 1 , 100-104. 5. GRAY J . H . , ACREE J.A. & PAYNE R . L . (1983). - Economic benefits to the fever tick eradication program derived from wildlife surveillance. Internatl Symp. Vet. Epidem. and Economics, 3 , 452-458. 6. GRAY J . H . , PAYNE R . L . , SCHUBERT G.O. & GARNETT W.H. (1980). - Implication of white-tailed deer in the Boophilus annulatus tick eradication program. Proc. US Anim. Hlth Ass., 8 3 , 506-515. 7. HAYES F . A . (1978). - Purposes and objectives of wildlife disease investigations in the southeastern United States. In Proc. Internatl Symp. Anim. Health and Dis. Data Banks, Washington, D.C., 4-6 December 1978, USDA Miscellaneous Publication 1381, 87-95. 8. HEUSCHELE W.P., FLETCHER H.R., OOSTERHUIS J . , JANSSEN D. & ROBINSON P.T. (1984). - Epidemiologic aspects of malignant catarrhal fever in the USA. Proc. US Anim. Ass., 8 8 , 640-651. Hlth 9. HINSHAW V.S., NETTLES V . F . , SCHORR L . F . , W O O D J . M . & WEBSTER R.G. (1985). - Influenza virus surveillance in waterfowl in Pennsylvania after the H5N2 avian outbreak. Avian Dis., 3 0 , 207-212. 10. NETTLES V.F. & ERICKSON G.A. (1984). - Pseudorabies in wild swine. Proc. US Anim. Hlth Ass., 8 8 , 505-506. 11. NETTLES V . F . , WEBSTER R.G., HINSHAW V.S. & W O O D J . M . (1986). - The status of wildlife associated with the 1983-84 avian influenza outbreak in Pennsylvania/Virginia. Proc. Second Internatl Symp. Avian Influenza, 2 , 51-60. 805 12. NETTLES V.F., WOOD J.M. & WEBSTER R.G. (1985). - Wildlife surveillance associated with an outbreak of lethal H5N2 avian influenza in domestic poultry. Avian Dis., 2 9 , 733-741. 13. SMITH M.L. (1981). — Wildlife health: an idea whose time has come. In Fish and Wildlife News, Special Edition, Research. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Dept. of Interior, April-May, 31-33. 14. STALLKNECHT D.E., FLETCHER W.O., ERICKSON G.A. & NETTLES V.F. (1987). - Antibodies to vesicular stomatitis New Jersey type virus in wild and domestic sentinel swine. Am. J. Epidemiol., 1 2 5 , 1058-1065. 15. STALLKNECHT D.E., NETTLES V.F., ERICKSON G.A. & JESSUP D.A. (1986). - Antibodies to vesicular stomatitis virus in populations of feral swine in the United States. J. Wildl. Dis., 2 2 , 320-325. 16. STALLKNECHT D.E., NETTLES V.F., FLETCHER W.O. & ERICKSON G.A. (1985). - Enzootic vesicular stomatitis New Jersey type in an insular feral swine population. Am. J. Epidemiol., 122, 876-883. 17. THORNE E . T . , MORTON J.K., BLUNT F.M. & DAWSON H.A. (1978). - Brucellosis in elk. II. Clinical effects and means of transmission as determined through artificial infections. J. Wildl. Dis., 1 4 , 280-291. 18. U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE (1988). - 1985 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-associated Recreation. US Government Printing Office, Washington D . C . (in press). 19. W O O D J . M . , WEBSTER R.G. & NETTLES V.F. (1985). - Host range of an A/chicken/Pennsylvania/83 (H5N2) influenza virus. Avian Dis., 2 9 , 198-207. 20. ZYGMONT S.M., NETTLES V.F., SHOTTS J R E.B., CARMEN W.A. & BLACKBURN B.O. (1982). — Brucellosis in wild swine: a serologic and bacteriologie survey in the southeastern United States and Hawaii. J. Am. vet. med. Ass., 1 8 1 , 1285-1287.