The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012 by The Wildlife Society

Vol. 6 No. 1

Spring 2012

Facing Wildlife Disease Head On

Coyotes in New York City Risks of the Wildlife Profession Advances in Chemical Immobilization

Spring 2012 Vol. 6 No. 1

The Wildlife Professional (ISSN 1933-2866) is a quarterly magazine published by The Wildlife Society (5410 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, MD 20814-2144) as a benefit of membership. The magazine’s goal is to present timely research, news, and analysis of issues and trends in the wildlife profession. You can learn more about The Wildlife Society and the benefits of membership, including publications and web resources, by contacting headquarters or visiting www.wildlife.org. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of The Wildlife Society (TWS). Editorial Advisory Board

TWS Staff

Steve Belinda Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership David Bergman USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services Chad Bishop Colorado Division of Wildlife Robert Brown North Carolina State University Sarah A. Bucklin U.S. Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Richard Chipman USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services Bradley B. Compton Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game Mike Conner Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center Thomas A. Decker Vermont Fish and Wildlife Dept. Scott L. Edwards Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks Terrell Erickson USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Heather Eves Virginia Polytechnic and State University Jon Gassett AFWA, Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Dept. Sue Haseltine U.S. Geological Survey, Retired Scott P. Lerich National Wild Turkey Federation Meenakshi Nagendran U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of International Conservation Arthur R. Rodgers Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Dana Sanchez Oregon State University Brad Strobel Texas Tech University Samara Trusso Pennsylvania Game Commission Raul Valdez New Mexico State University

Michael Hutchins Yanin Walker Damon Yeh

subscription and advertising The Wildlife Professional is a benefit of membership in The Wildlife Society. A portion of your dues may be tax deductible, so consult your tax advisor. Membership categories include Individual, Student, Family, Retired, and International. For rates and benefit information please email membership@wildlife.org or use the contact information below. Annual membership dues: $71 for individuals, $115 for families, $46 for new professionals, $36 for students and retirees. Non-members can subscribe for $120 a year. For advertising information, go to www.wildlife.org/adrates or contact Bob Silverstein, 240-498-9674, rsilverstein@ AdSalesExperts.net.

Contributor Guidelines All TWS members are encouraged to submit story ideas or manuscripts to The Wildlife Professional. Guidelines are available at www.wildlife.org/guidelines. Email inquiries to editor@wildlife.org, or mail them to TWS headquarters at the address below.

Rotating feature departments include: Executive Director/CEO Operations Manager DOI Youth Initiative Intern

education

Communications Lisa Moore Director/Editor-in-Chief Divya Abhat Managing Editor Jessica P. Johnson Science Writer Jeremiah Patterson Web Designer/Online Specialist Madeleine Thomas Editorial Intern

ethics in practice health and disease human-wildlife connection

Government Affairs Laura Bies Terra Rentz Christine Carmichael William Roberts Maggie Thomas

Director Assistant Director Associate Intern Intern

law and policy Research and Practice professional development

Membership Marketing and Conferences Darryl Walter Director Shannon Pederson Program Manager, Subunits and Certification Danielle Prete Conferences and Membership Assistant Emily Lapayowker Outreach and Marketing Intern Office and Finance Jane Jorgenson Vasa Pupavac Lilliam Matheson Aniket Gajare

Manager Finance Assistant Receptionist/Program Assistant Database and IT Administrator

TWS Governing Council Paul R. Krausman Winifred B. Kessler Jonathan B. Haufler Thomas J. Ryder Richard K. Baydack Carol L. Chambers Jack Connelly Karl J. Martin John McDonald Darren Miller Gary C. White Donald A. Yasuda

President President-Elect Vice President Past President Canadian Section Southwest Section Northwest Section North Central Section Northeast Section Southeastern Section Central Mountains and Plains Western Section

Graphic design by Lynn Riley Design.

The Wildlife Society

Periodical postage paid at Bethesda, MD, and at additional mailing office.

Headquarters 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814-2144 P: (301) 897-9770 F: (301) 530-2471 tws@wildlife.org www.wildlife.org

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Wildlife Professional, 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, MD 20814-2144.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

commentary

reviews tools and technology wildlife imaging

Copyright and Permissions Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of any article published by The Wildlife Society for limited personal or educational use within one’s home institution is hereby granted without fee, provided that the first page or initial screen of a display includes the notice “Copyright © 2012 by The Wildlife Society,” along with the full citation, including the name(s) of the author(s). Copyright for components of this work owned by persons or organizations other than TWS must be honored. Instructors may use articles for educational purposes only. To copy or transmit otherwise, to republish, or to use such an article for commercial or promotional purposes requires specific permission and a possible fee. Permission must be requested by writing to editor@wildlife.org.

COVER: While teaching a course on field methods and research at the University of Georgia, biologist Michael J. Yabsley draws blood from a sedated bobcat to test for several pathogens including Cytauxzoon felis, a parasite that can kill domestic cats, and Trypanosoma cruzi, a parasite common in many wildlife species that can cause Chagas disease in dogs and humans. Credit: Jennifer Yates Andrew

facebook.com/thewildlifesociety @wildlifesociety youtube.com/user/WildlifeSociety http://linkd.in/erYapf

Spring 2012 Vol. 6 No. 1

Cover Story: Wildlife Health and Disease 22 Why Focus on Disease?

Expertise in wildlife disease helps conservation By David A. Jessup

24 Transformation through Time How wildlife disease became a focus of conservation By Milton Friend

Ills in the Pipeline

Emerging infectious diseases and wildlife By Jonathan Sleeman and Colin Gillin

40 The Lethal Jump from Wildlife to Humans

Why zoonotic diseases are on the rise By Michael J. Yablsey et al.

The Art of Chemical Capture

When Marine Ecosystems Fall Ill

Harmful algal blooms and marine biotoxins By Melissa Miller et al.

Sylvatic Plague Vaccine

Combating plague in prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets By Tonie E. Rocke and Rachel C. Abbott

Credit: USGS National Wildlife Health Center

Advances in wildlife capture pharmacology By Michael D. Kock et al.

rotating features

departments

Human-Wildlife Connection 54

6 7 8 10 12 16 20

Eastern Coyotes in New York City By Anne H. Toomey et al.

58 Professional Development Danger All in a Day’s Work By Madeleine Thomas 62 Commentary

When Science Isn’t Enough to Solve Problems By Michael L. Gibeau

66 Education

Engaging Youth with Roosevelt Ideals By Bill Jensen

68 Commentary

Call for Retraction By Ellen Paul et al.

Editor’s Note Guest Editorial Leadership Letter

Letters to the Editor Science in Short

Credit: Tracy Graziano/Pennsylvania Game Commission

State of Wildlife Today’s Wildlife Professionals: Deana Clifford and Jonna Mazet

70 Policy Watch

Issues relevant to wildlifers

73 Aldo Leopold Award Speech 76 Field Notes

Practical tips for field biologists

78 The Society Pages

TWS news and events

86 75 Years Ago

History of The Wildlife Society

88 Gotcha!

Credit: Idaho Fish and Game

Photos from readers

Online Extra: Watch a video of volunteers and biologists with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department use a drop net to capture 35 bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) from the Whiskey Mountain, Wyoming herd and test them for a devastating strain of pneumonia.

More Online! This publication is available online to TWS members at wildlife.org/twplogin. Throughout the magazine, mouse icons and text printed in blue indicate links to more information available online.

www.wildlife.org

It’s Only a Matter of Time So what’s the big deal about 75 years? Though just a blip in evolutionary time, this modest twodigit number marks a milestone in the life of The Wildlife Society, founded 75 years ago this year and growing stronger than ever. Credit: Ruxandra Giura It’s customary to mark such an occasion by looking backward, and we’ll do our share of that. On page 86 of this issue, we describe the founding of TWS and some of its pioneers. Later this year, the entire fall issue of The Wildlife Professional will commemorate the Society's history, leaders, and accomplishments. That anniversary issue will feature articles written by an impressive cast of authors, several of whom have been members of TWS for decades and therefore have the institutional memory and experience to reflect on the Society’s achievements.

In honor of the 75th, TWS also recently released a video to introduce prospective members and the public to the Society and its mission. That mission is reflected through two young wildlife biologists whose passion for their work symbolizes the stewardship that TWS has come to represent. Finally, at the Annual Conference in Portland, Oregon in October, we’ll toast the 75th and TWS members—now nearly 11,000 strong—who have made this Society the preeminent professional organization promoting science-based wildlife management and conservation. The members of TWS have given me quite an education in the four short years I’ve been here. Those who hunt have taught me to understand the lure of wilderness and the hunting heritage that underlies North American wildlife conservation. Members who donate considerable time to write articles for this magazine—such as the stellar team of authors who contributed to the wildlife disease package in this issue—have taught me that their work involves not only hard science but passion, both of which benefit the species they sweat to conserve. And TWS staff and Council members have taught me that service to a mission they believe in is its own best reward. Today, when I watch a fox dart across my back yard, walk through a well-tended forest, or hear the trumpet of migrating geese, I know that dedicated wildlife professionals are somewhere behind the scenes, working to sustain such natural riches. I’d like to think that it’s only a matter of time before policymakers and the public come to understand this as well, and appreciate the contributions of your Society and why your work is so essential to the well-being of the continent. That will be another milestone worth celebrating.

Lisa Moore Editor-in-Chief LMoore@wildlife.org

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

GUEST EDITORIAL

Facing Disease Head-On By David A. Jessup and Colin Gillin

“The role of disease in wildlife populations has probably been radically underestimated.”

– Aldo Leopold, Game Management, 1933

nce again, Aldo Leopold proves visionary. Nearly 80 years after his initial observation, we daily see the specter of wildlife disease exerting major influence on state, federal, provincial, tribal, and private wildlife management activities. New diseases have emerged and old ones have reemerged and/or moved around against a backdrop of increasing human and wildlife population densities and habitat loss and degradation. Humans clearly have a major hand in the problem—but also in the solution. Hunting practices such as baiting deer, bear, and wild pigs, as well as recreational activities like feeding wild birds and small mammals, can cause animals to congregate, leading to disease transmission. Likewise, management practices such as fire suppression or winter feeding of large ungulates may also have profound effects on disease prevalence and infectivity. However, with a growing recognition of wildlife diseases and their implications for domestic animal and human health, there is also increased social, political, legal, and financial pressure to control and limit disease.

Then and Now

Historically, the fear of foreign animal diseases (like rinderpest and “foot and mouth”) becoming endemic in wildlife has been a major concern in North America. More recently, wildlife as reservoirs for rabies, TB, brucellosis, plague, avian influenza (AI), West Nile, and Lyme disease have garnered great public attention. In just the last decade we have seen a strange, almost alien, life form called a prion, the cause of chronic wasting disease, spread across deer and elk populations in the United States and Canada, despite the best efforts of wildlife agencies to limit it. And the seemingly common chytrid fungus appears to be wiping out whole populations of amphibians in many parts of the world. Perhaps the most dramatic recent example of an emerging disease is white-nose syndrome (WNS) in bats, a fungal infection that arose in the eastern

U.S. and in just the last four or five years has rapidly spread, devastating bat populations in much of the eastern U.S. and into Canada. The environmental, human, and animal health consequences of losing these insectivores may be huge, dwarfing the effects of chronic wasting disease on deer and elk. Ironically, fungal diseases have been considered the weakest of pathogens, far less aggressive and deadly than parasites, bacteria, viruses, or prions. Because healthy wildlife populations are an extremely valuable natural resource, and because wildlife diseases can be very difficult and expensive to control, disease outbreaks can have serious financial and political implications. Responding to such outbreaks therefore takes collaborative action among government wildlife conservation agencies, universities, non-profit organizations, and organizations charged with protecting livestock and human health. Such cooperative models provide some of the most successful examples of wildlife disease research and management, particularly in an era of limited financial resources. For example, the response to the more lethal strains of avian influenza involved rapid cooperation between many governments worldwide, and between human health, agriculture, and wildlife agencies at the highest levels of government, which became nearly unprecedented cooperation and understanding of the threat at most levels of society. Many agencies and conservation NGOs (the Wildlife Conservation Society was at the forefront as AI emerged in wild geese in Mongolia), as well as university laboratories and researchers, cooperated to bring global testing and disease surveillance online.

Credit: Sharon Toy-Choutka

David A. Jessup (DVM, MPVM, CWB) is Executive Manager of the Wildlife Disease Association.

Courtesy of Colin Gillin

Colin Gillin, DVM, is President of the American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians.

We hope that all wildlife professionals will heed Leopold’s words and consider the significance of disease to wildlife populations. For those with a passion for wildlife health and conservation medicine, we hope you’ll join TWS’ Wildlife Diseases Working Group, the Wildlife Disease Association, the American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, or other organizations working to optimize the health of wildlife, people, their livestock, and the environments that support all.

www.wildlife.org

In a World Dominated by Parasites Funding Poses the Greatest Challenge By Scott E. Hygnstrom and Richard N. Brown

he issue of disease is relevant to anyone studying or managing wildlife populations. Most diseases are caused by infectious and/or parasitic agents (such as viruses, bacteria, fungi, flatworms, nematodes, and arthropods), and some cause problems severe enough to force managers to act. Credit: UNL

Scott E. Hygnstrom is Professor and Extension Wildlife Specialist in the School of Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and Immediate Past Chair of TWS’ Wildlife Diseases Working Group.

Within the management community, broad recognition of the importance of diseases has paralleled the emergence or reemergence of diseases that devastate wildlife populations or that threaten livestock and/or human health. Infectious agents—including those that cause avian malaria in Hawaii, Lyme disease, brucellosis, chytridiomycosis, West Nile encephalitis, avian influenza, devil facial tumor disease, and white-nose syndrome—impact wildlife populations as well as budgets at all levels. Many of these rapidly emerging diseases have been exacerbated by globalization and the movement of wildlife, vectors, or pathogens into naïve systems. Management therefore needs to be proactive, well-funded, and flexible to meet the challenges of disease-related problems in the modern world.

The Ups and Downs of Money Courtesy of Richard N. Brown

Richard N. Brown is Assistant Professor at Humboldt State University's Department of Wildlife and Chair of TWS’ Wildlife Diseases Working Group.

Levels of funding for surveillance, monitoring, research, and management of wildlife diseases have fluctuated widely over time. In the 1960s, major outbreaks of avian cholera and duck plague attracted attention, and state and federal funds were generated to beat back these ills. Research labs were opened, seminal books written, and programs developed to aid public agencies in the detection, diagnosis, and management of wildlife diseases. But government interest waned, funding dried up, and programs died on the vine. In the early 1980s, an outbreak of Lyme disease in the upper-Midwest renewed interest in a perplexing bacterial disease, but again funding was reduced. In 1993, an undiagnosed outbreak of hantavirus in the Southwest attracted attention nationwide. Diligent efforts by the Centers for Disease Control and state agencies helped break the case, but coffers of state and federal agencies remained thin. In 1999, an outbreak of West Nile Virus (WNV) occurred in New York, and we were not ready for the ensuing tidal wave: In four years,

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

WNV swept across the country infecting thousands of horses and humans and leaving hundreds dead in its wake. Some states made funds available for surveillance, vaccination, and public education programs, but many ignored the warnings. Perhaps WNV did us a favor by shocking the public and decision makers into taking action. Chronic wasting disease (CWD), which moves slowly, wasn’t a concern until 2000, when it started popping up across the country. Congress directed millions of dollars to state programs through the USDA and USGS to facilitate surveillance, monitoring, and research. Unfortunately as the disease spread, the stream of federal funds for CWD dried up. About the same time, avian influenza (AI) was spreading rapidly across Asia and Europe. Again, congressional money flowed and agencies developed surveillance programs. Even Hollywood got caught up in the act with a TV movie, “Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America.” But just as fast as it came, funding for AI dried up and now, with the virus knocking at our door in the North Pacific, we no longer have a nationally coordinated surveillance program. AI was just another “disease of the day.” What will be next? Will it be another rogue, neverbefore-seen prion, or the reemergence of an old enemy such as foot-and-mouth disease? Either way, crises can’t be met without constant and sustainable funding. To promote that goal, the Wildlife Diseases Working Group (WDWG) of TWS recently drafted a position statement that recommends funding of a sustained nationwide program of surveillance, monitoring, research, and management. So, where do we as TWS members fit into all of this? Consider joining the WDWG. Now with 210 members, it is one of the largest and most active of all working groups. We have developed a website and newsletter (the Vector) to inform members about wildlife disease issues, and we have reviewed position statements, agency plans, organization guidelines, and Congressional directives to enhance the role of science in disease management. By supporting this effort, you can help tackle the growing challenge that disease poses to wildlife around the world. © The Wildlife Society

Collaborative Efforts on Jaguars

In reading “Hot on the Trail” by Clayton K. Nielsen, Charles Steven Borrego, and Carlos A. López González, which ran in the winter 2011 issue of The Wildlife Professional, we find the following inaccuracies and misleading statements:

Vol. 5 No. 4 Winter 2011

1. In the article, the authors state that “… our two teams of researchers—from the Universidad Autonoma de Queretaro in Mexico and the Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory at Southern Illinois University (CWRL-SIU) in Carbondale, Illinois—are working on separate but analogous studies to monitor jaguar populations in Sonora.” However, the last time anybody from the Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory was at the site was two years ago. Today our team includes top professors and scientists from New Mexico State University, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia and Instituto de Ecología from the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, the University of Arizona, Primero Conservation, and others. The article leads readers to believe that not only are there only two institutions working in the area, but also that the Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory is still working in the area. 2. Mr. Borrego does not adequately acknowledge the ranch owners and their conservation association, which is an association for the conservation of jaguars, not a cattlemen’s association. Additional recognition was owed to field technician Guillermo Galaz, who did the vast majority of the work. Instead all support was recognized in the single statement: “One rancher in particular who is the president of a local cattleman’s association has been very active in attempting to promote jaguar conservation among his fellow ranchers.” Mr. Borrego appears to refer to the technician as a “local vaquero who has been working as a deer hunting guide and depredation technician on some of the ranches in our study area.” In order to do justice to the parties involved, we respectfully request that you indicate the following:

Please send letters to: editor@wildlife.org Letters may be edited for publication.

• Full credit to the ranchers’ association, Asociacion para la Conservación del Jaguar en la Sierra Alta de Sonora A.C. As the president of this association, I negotiated access to all the ranches where Steven Borrego conducted his study. The association has worked hard and with economic losses for more than 10 years to protect Sonora’s jaguars.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

• Full credit to Guillermo Galaz, the highly trained technician who carried out most of the field work for Mr. Borrego’s thesis. • Acknowledgement that the CWRL-SIU is no longer working in the region and has not been for the past two years, and that the current institutions involved include a bi-national consortium of Texas Tech University, New Mexico State University, Primero Conservation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, and the University of Arizona. Jesus Moreno President, Asociacion para la Conservación del Jaguar en la Sierra Alta de Sonora A.C.

The Authors Respond

In response to Jesus Moreno’s letter about the article on jaguar research in the winter 2011 issue of The Wildlife Professional, we would like to acknowledge the Asociacion para la Conservación del Jaguar en la Sierra Alta de Sonora A.C., along with all of the other primary sources of support for our research. These include the Walt Disney Conservation Fund, the Shared Earth Foundation, the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, the nonprofit Panthera group, and the following programs with Southern Illinois University at Carbondale: the Walker Fellowship, Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, Department of Forestry, Center for Ecology, and College of Agricultural Sciences. We greatly appreciate the support of all these entities, and regret that we could not include all by name in our article due to word-count constraints in The Wildlife Professional and its lack of a formal acknowledgements section. Likewise, we also appreciate the assistance of technician Guillermo Galaz, who helped Steven Borrego in some of his field research in Mexico and was featured in an article on our work previously published in the Wild Felid Monitor. We stand by the content of our article in TWP: It contains no inaccuracies or misleading statements. Although we acknowledge that we are no longer conducting active field work in our jaguar study area (as our article makes clear by giving the dates when we collected data), we are still analyzing the data from our jaguar study, and therefore, in scientific terms, we are still “working in the area.”

In addition, article co-author Clayton Nielsen is currently undertaking new research in Sonora. We are aware that there are several agencies and universities conducting jaguar research in Sonora. Our goal in this article was not to provide a comprehensive review of all jaguar work occurring in northern Mexico, but to describe our recent study. This story was appropriate for The Wildlife Professional, and we encourage our wildlife colleagues to approach the magazine with their own tales. Clayton K. Nielsen, Assistant Professor Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, SIU Carbondale Eric C. Hellgren, Director and Professor Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, SIU Carbondale

Intensive Management Programs

In response to my article on Alaska’s predator control programs (Van Ballenberghe 2011) that ran in the winter 2011 issue of The Wildlife Professional, Rossi et al. (2011) correctly asserted that Alaska’s constitution and statutes require that wildlife resources be managed for sustained yield that provides maximum benefit for the people. They also affirmed that wild game meat is important to Alaskans. But, while they implied that these directives and traditions justify the predator control programs adopted by the Board of Game in recent years, I contend that these programs lacked adequate standards to justify, implement, monitor, and evaluate management actions. This has resulted in control programs that lacked reliable population estimates of predators and prey as well as data that showed the limiting effects of predation and identified predators. After Alaska’s intensive management law was passed in 1994, the Department of Fish and Game did not recommend and the Board of Game did not adopt adequate standards to guide predator control programs. A National Research Council (NRC) review done in 1997, however, provided a blueprint for suitable standards and recommended that control programs be conducted as experiments wherein results could be reliably determined. Now, some 15 years later, the results of some control programs are in doubt because the NRC’s recommended experimental standard

was never adopted, nor were suitable protocols devised for monitoring and evaluating control programs or for terminating predator reductions. I contend that, because they have a vested interest, Department staff and Board members cannot fairly assess whether or not the NRC’s recommendations were applied. However, well-qualified biologists outside the Department have concluded that they were not. While it is true that the Department now presents feasibility assessments for proposed control programs to the Board, this process only began in 2011. The six currently active predator control programs totaling nearly 70,000 square miles were all approved prior to 2011. Some control programs might not have survived the scrutiny of a feasibility assessment had the process been in place earlier. And if the predator control programs had contained adequate standards and suitable protocols at the time they were adopted, criticism by wildlife professionals outside the Department would have been much less severe. Victor Van Ballenberghe Anchorage, Alaska

Correction

In the winter 2011 issue of The Wildlife Professional, we incorrectly credited Victor Van Ballenberghe for an image of a wolf (below) that was killed by aerial shooters in eastern Alaska. The correct credit for that image is the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Credit: Alaska Department of Fish and Game

www.wildlife.org

Fear Slows Reproduction

Credit: AAAS

The fear of predation alone can cause prey to produce fewer offspring. Researchers Liana Zanette and colleagues from the University of Western Ontario report in Science (v. 334/6061) that when song sparrows (Melospiza melodia) were exposed to predator calls, they laid lighter and fewer eggs, incubated fewer eggs to hatch, and fed their hatchlings less often, resulting in 40 percent fewer fledglings leaving the nest. The researchers first set up electric fencing and netting to keep ground and air predators away from song sparrow nests in the Gulf Islands of British Columbia, Canada. They then played the calls of predators—such as raccoons, ravens, crows, hawks, owls, and cowbirds—and non-predators every few minutes in four-day on/off cycles throughout the entire 130-day breeding season. In response to the predator calls only, the sparrows spent less time on their nests and visited their hatchlings less often, contributing to the poor survival. The decrease in offspring due to fear rivaled that of actual predation, which was estimated to be at least 50 percent. The results are the first to confirm previous observational studies with several other non-bird species, and the authors therefore recommend giving more consideration to the effects of fear on population dynamics.

Bird Habitat Squeezed Credit: PLoS ONE

Click here for a video showing how the fear of predation can reduce the number of songbird offspring.

A survey of 55 tropical bird species on the Peruvian mountain Cerros del Sira reveals that the birds have shifted their range upward by 49 meters over a 41year period. Reporting in PLoS ONE (v. 6/12), German Forero-Medina from Duke University and colleagues suggest that the birds sought higher altitudes to compensate for a 0.79 ºC warming trend in the region. The team of researchers studied mist-net bird surveys conducted in 1969 and 2010 along the same transect up the tropical mountain, comparing five elevations between 690 and 2,220 meters. Although some bird species moved up and some moved down, there appeared to be a significant overall upward movement. However, the average elevation gain of 49 meters was much less than the 155 meters deemed necessary to completely compensate for the temperature change. This lowerthan-expected shift by the birds could be because they are slowed by aspects of their habitat—such as vegetation type, food availability, and competitors— which have not shifted as quickly as temperature. Species that do not move to higher elevations may suffer from living in hotter temperatures, however species that do move will inevitably have smaller geographic ranges, increasing their risk of extinction.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Wolf Highways

Credit: Ecological Society of America

Over the past decade, David Latham and colleagues at the University of Alberta have observed an increase in wolf predation on threatened woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in the boreal forests of northern Alberta, Canada. Similar trends have been observed in the U.S., where the animal is endangered. In Alberta, the increased predation coincides with an increase in the construction of industrial linear features such as roads, pipeline right-of-ways, and seismic exploration lines, all of which cut paths through forest vegetation in relatively straight lines. In Ecological Applications (v. 21/8), the team reports that wolves were more attracted to the constructed linear features, especially seismic lines, during snow-free periods when these trails were easy to follow. There was also a corresponding increase in caribou deaths during snow-free months, suggesting that the linear features provided the wolves with easier access to prime caribou habitat. The result has been increased caribou predation by wolves and the loss of suitable habitat for caribou attempting to minimize predation risk by avoiding the linear features. Seismic lines and other constructed linear features have increased since the 1990s, and the authors conclude that they are at least partially responsible for recent woodland caribou population declines. © The Wildlife Society

Gazelles Off the Hook

Lag in ESA Listing?

Credit: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

By some estimates, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has prevented 227 species extinctions since its passage in 1973. However, an international team of researchers suggests that it could be doing much more. The team compared ESA listings and listing criteria with those of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, the international standard for categorization and listing of sensitive species around the globe. Reporting in Conservation Letters (v. 4/6), the researchers found that the ESA fails to list 40 percent of IUCN-listed endangered U.S. birds and 62 percent of “vulnerable” species. For non-bird endangered species, an average of 71 percent are missing, as are 83 percent of vulnerable species. In addition, while 80 percent of all ESAlisted species are classified as endangered, only 40 percent of IUCN-listed species are, indicating that proposed endangered species receive listing priority in the U.S. The authors recommend targeting vulnerable species for listing to improve their chances of survival and also propose clearer definitions for determining species status, coordination between the IUCN and ESA agencies, and more funding.

Credit: Wildlife Disease Association

Food Supplementation Perils

Pollination Gap

Credit: National Academy of Sciences

In response to a warming climate, many birds, insects, and plants are emerging earlier in the spring than in years past. For mutualistic species, such as plants and their pollinators, these phenological timing shifts can disrupt a relationship if the species’ active periods drift far enough apart. Researchers at Rutgers University compared the date of spring emergence of 10 generalist bee species and 106 plant species native to the northeastern U.S. from 1880 to 2010 and found that the bees’ average emergence date had shifted 10.4 days earlier. The findings, reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (v. 108/51), also show that most of this shift occurred in the last 40 years, paralleling an increasing rate of climate change and suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship. Plants are also flowering earlier but at a slightly different rate than bee emergence, which has created a timing gap. For now, the gap is not big enough to hinder pollination, but it may grow with further climate change.

Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious virus that infects all ruminant species, including Mongolian gazelles (Procapra gutturosa) of the Eastern Steppe that interact regularly with livestock. One third of Mongolia’s human population subsists on livestock, so there is great concern that gazelles are a reservoir for FMD and have the potential to devastate local economies. But the fear is unjustified, report researchers from the Wildlife Conservation Society in the Journal of Wildlife Diseases (v. 48/1). The team collected blood samples from gazelles and livestock during an FMD-free period from 2005 to 2008 and compared them to samples collected during a livestock FMD outbreak in 2001. The gazelles had very low levels of FMD antibodies during a three-year outbreakfree period, indicating that they are not year-round carriers of the disease and are instead being infected by livestock. The authors suggest that FMD control in this area should therefore focus on livestock vaccination rather than on control of gazelle herds.

Credit: Ecological Society of America

In the last three decades, intense supplementary feeding has boosted the Spanish imperial eagle (Aquila adalberti) breeding population from 60 to around 500. Food supplementation can rapidly improve individual health and breeding success, but it can also cause problems that undermine survival including poisoning, disease, nutritional deficiency, and behavioral alterations. Guillermo Blanco of the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales in Madrid, Spain, and colleagues report in Ecological Applications (v. 21/7) that eagles supplemented with domestic rabbits between 1996 and 2007 had depressed immune systems resulting in higher rates of infection by a greater number of pathogenic species than birds fed wild rabbits. Antibiotics and antiparasitic agents given to domestic rabbits were being ingested by eagles, causing them to become immunocompromised. The researchers therefore encourage managers to investigate food quality before feeding it to vulnerable animals such as commonly supplemented populations of lynx, bear, and other birds of prey.

www.wildlife.org

Articles from Wildlife Monographs and The Journal of Wildlife Management

Bringing Back the Elk

Credit: TWS

By 1849, elk (Cervus elaphus canadensis) no longer existed in Tennessee. More than 150 years later, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency is coordinating efforts to reintroduce the animal. Recently, Jason Kindall and colleagues from the University of Tennessee gathered 167 elk of the subspecies C. e. manitobensis from two locations—Elk Island National Park in Alberta, Canada, and Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area in Kentucky—and relocated them to the Cumberland Mountains in northeastern Tennessee between late 2000 and early 2003. They monitored the radio-collared elk until late 2004 to predict whether the population would sustain itself for at least 25 years. In The Journal of Wildlife Management (v. 75/8), they report that high mortality—20.1 percent per year on average—makes it unlikely that the population will survive, largely because of poaching, vehicle collisions, natural injury, and meningeal worm (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis). The researchers suggest that further reintroductions are futile unless efforts are made to address the causes of mortality.

Grassland Sparrows Need Variety

Credit: TWS

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) populations have declined by 70 percent, in step with the disappearance of North American grasslands. Torre Hovick of Iowa State University and colleagues thought that the decline may be due to a decreasing diversity of vegetation structure caused by intense grazing and fire suppression practices that tend to homogenize grassland composition and structure. To test their theory, they compared such “grazed-and-burned” sites in southern Iowa to “patch-burn grazing” treatments that mimic pre-agricultural conditions and contain a richer diversity of plant species and size. As reported in The Journal of Wildlife Management (v. 76/1), sparrow nest survival was higher—23 percent—in patch-burn grazing areas than in grazed-and-burned areas—14 percent. The researchers speculated that survival was lower in the grazed-and-burned sites because the vegetation structure provided better cover to sparrow predators and also provided fewer bare patches for the sparrows to forage. The researchers suggest that efforts to increase grasshopper sparrow habitat should focus on creating habitat heterogeneity through restored natural processes such as the fire-grazing interaction.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Wild Horse Contraception

Feral horses (Equus caballus) drain resources and damage habitats in areas where they are overpopulated. As population control measures, immunocontraceptive vaccines cause few side effects and are favored as a humane alternative to herd culling. Recently, researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management, and Department of Agriculture tested the efficacy of a liquid and a pellet form of a vaccine called porcine zona pellucida (PZP) in three feral horse populations in Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. They report in the Wildlife Society Bulletin (v. 35/4) that the liquid form dropped foaling rates to as low as 6 percent versus 32 percent with the pellet form. But the liquid form has a drawback. It is only effective for up to a year, so follow-up boosters are required and gaining access to mares annually is challenging. The pellet formulation, on the other hand, lasts about two years. With further research, a single dose, long-term form of PZP will likely be the preferred method once its effectiveness is proven.

Hunters Needed

Some waterfowl populations have grown so dramatically in response to changing environmental conditions that they now threaten to destroy natural habitats in arctic and subarctic regions of Canada. In 1999, the Canadian Wildlife Service and the U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service increased hunting pressure on the greater snow goose (Chen caerulescens atlantica), the lesser snow goose (C. c. caerulescens), and Ross’s goose (C. rossii) to reduce populations of these migratory species in central and eastern North America. The hunting season in both countries was lengthened, daily kill limits were increased, and some restrictions on hunting equipment were removed. A team of Canadian and American researchers report in Wildlife Monographs (v. 179) that these measures may have slowed, but did not stop population growth among midcontinent lesser snow geese, considered the biggest contributors to habitat destruction. The authors recommend further easing of hunting restrictions, recruitment of more snow goose hunters by subsidizing licenses, and coordinating conservation orders between the U.S. and Canada in order to control populations.

See this department online at wildlife.org/twplogin for other articles of interest.

Park and wintering grounds in southwest Wyoming—one of the farthest migrations of all mammals in the western hemisphere. As a result, collisions between motorists and wildlife can be a common occurrence in the area. The Bridger-Teton National Forest and other entities—including the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—have built six wildlife underpasses and two overpasses along a 12-mile stretch of two separate two-lane highways. In addition, the agencies have added fencing to help herd wildlife toward the crossings—an effort that’s expected to save the lives of roughly 90 animals every year.

Canada

Northwest

Western

Central Mountains and Plains

Northeast North Central

Southwest

Southeastern

Mexico

North America

News and events affecting wildlife and wildlife professionals from across North America Northeast

Source: USDA Forest Service

Southwest New Mexico, Arizona—After tracking Mexican gray wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) for months, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently revealed that wolf numbers in the Southwest are up. FWS counted 26 wolves in the wild in New Mexico and 32 in Arizona—a record high in the last five years. Biologists also found that of the states’ 12 packs, six have breeding pairs. Still, according to the report, Mexican wolves in the region continue to struggle to survive in the wild partly because not enough wolves are being released from captivity. Last year, FWS released two wolves to replace the eight wolves that died or went missing in 2010. FWS monitors and manages gray wolves as part of a captive-breeding program that was launched in 1976, following a significant population decline. Source: Center for Biological Diversity

New Hampshire—After reviewing video footage of four Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) kittens, biologists with New Hampshire State Fish and Game have confirmed that lynx are reproducing in the state. The species is probably expanding its range from across the border in Maine, which has a lynx population of approximately 600 to 1,200 individuals. Meanwhile, New Hampshire biologists have protected valuable habitat suitable for lynx, which have only occurred as transients in the state since the 1960s. Canada lynx prey primarily on snowshoe hare and as a result prefer young regenerating forests—ideal hare habitat. Lynx are listed as “endangered” in New Hampshire and “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. Source: New Hampshire State Fish and Game

Central Mountains and Plains WYOMING—The Federal Highway Administration recognized the Bridger-Teton National Forest and five partner agencies for their collaborative work on the construction of wildlife migration corridors in west-central Wyoming’s Trappers Point Area. Although the area has seen tremendous energy and housing development over the years, it continues to serve as a critical migration corridor for wildlife, including a herd of pronghorn antelope that migrates about 160 miles twice a year between Grand Teton National

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Credit: Jim Clark/USFWS

Numbers of wild Mexican gray wolves in New Mexico and Arizona have increased for a second consecutive year. According to FWS survey results, of the 38 pups that were born in the wild last year, 18 survived—bringing the total number of wild wolves in the region to 58.

number of mortalities in this case. They attributed the outbreak to an unusually wet spring that left muddy breeding grounds for midges, followed by a warm fall that allowed the insects to linger and continue transmitting EHD to deer. This followed a brutal winter that reduced deer populations across the region, although white-tailed numbers were still well above long-term averages in most of northeastern Montana. In response to the decline, northeastern Montana reduced hunting tag sales by 3,000, while western North Dakota suspended 1,500 licenses and offered refunds for deer tags already sold. Agency officials expect to have more precise estimates of deer mortalities in the region after they survey fall hunter success and complete winter population counts. The disease does not infect people and there’s no risk of handling or eating infected deer. Source: Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Credit: Erwin and Peggy Bauer/USFWS

Woodland caribou in Alberta have been denied emergency protection for a second time after federal environment minister Peter Kent concluded that, nationally, the species doesn’t face an imminent threat to survival.

North Central missouri—The Missouri Department of Conservation recently reported that the Show-Me State’s 2011-2012 archery deer and turkey harvests topped the previous year’s numbers. Archers checked 2,923 turkeys—739 more than the 20102011 hunting season, while bowhunters checked 52,671 deer—10,299 more than the previous year. Department biologists attribute the increase in archery turkey harvest to a good hatch from last year and an increase in archery permit sales. Meanwhile, biologists are unable to pin down the exact cause for this year’s increased archery deer harvest, but believe that a mild fall could have led hunters to spend more time outdoors, hunting deer. In the past decade, fluctuations in archery harvests have been sizeable, and biologists are exploring a number of factors, including weather, to determine the cause. Source: Missouri Department of Conservation

Northwest Montana—Last summer, high numbers of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in parts of eastern Montana died of epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD). Mortality rates varied from zero to 90 percent in some parts of Montana. Wildlife officials also reported a number of white-tailed deaths in sites scattered across western North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Kansas. Transmitted by biting midges, the disease causes internal bleeding, which can kill an infected animal within a few days. Although periodic outbreaks of EHD aren’t uncommon, scientists were concerned with the high

Canada alberta—Federal Environment Minister Peter Kent recently announced his decision not to issue an emergency protective order for Alberta’s woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), stating that herds in the rest of Canada appeared healthy and therefore a decline in Alberta’s population did not impact overall species survival. Alberta’s caribou are threatened largely because of oil sands development in the province. This is the second time the minister has declined protection for the species in the province. In July 2011, the federal court concluded that caribou in northern Alberta faced extirpation and ordered the minister to reconsider his earlier decision to deny the species emergency protection. Instead, the minister suggested that Alberta’s existing recovery plan for caribou could help address caribou within the province. A number of environmental groups, as well as the Athasbasca Chipewyan First Nation in northern Alberta are preparing to dispute the environment minister’s decision. Source: Ecojustice

Western california—Officials from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game recently filed charges against a dozen people in Southern California and Nevada who are suspected of selling protected wildlife species online. Last summer, undercover agents carried out a sting operation, dubbed “Operation Cyberwild.” They posed as buyers on eBay, Craigslist, and other websites looking to purchase protected wildlife species and illegal wildlife products. By the end of the operation, the officers had nabbed nine people for allegedly selling a variety of illegal items, including a pair of loggerhead sea turtle leather boots for $1,000 and leopard-skin coats that were selling for as much as $8,000. If convicted, these individuals could face six months to a year in prison and fines of up to $100,000. Source: California Department of Fish and Game, FWS

www.wildlife.org

lose access to a single, integrated source of federal and nonfederal biological and biodiversity information within the U.S. In addition, the future of the databases that were housed on the NBII website is uncertain. NBII also helped support a number of citizen science projects, including the Seabird Ecological Assessment Network and the Mid-Winter Bald Eagle Survey, all of which have also lost funding. USGS is working with individual partners to determine the future of these projects. Source: NBII

General

Credit: Lori Oberhofer/National Park Service

Researchers implant a radio transmitter in a 16-foot, 155-pound female Burmese python in an effort to understand and control the spread of the species in the Everglades. The Burmese python is among four snake species that can no longer be imported across state lines.

Southeastern florida—The year 2011 marked the second-deadliest year for Florida’s endangered manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris), with 453 individuals found dead in state waters. Wildlife officials attributed more than a quarter of those mortalities to frigid temperatures, making this the third consecutive year that a large number of manatees have fallen prey to bad weather. As a result, researchers with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Fish and Wildlife Research Institute will study data over the next couple of years to assess the long-term impacts of recent cold events on the overall population. Officials also reported that, in 2011, 88 manatees died because of watercraft strikes, an increase from 2010 but in line with recent averages. Watercraft collisions continue to be a concern and, as a result, the state uses various approaches to address human-related deaths such as enforcing manatee-protection zones and informing boaters about manatee conservation. Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

General The federal government recently eliminated funding for the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) program, forcing it to shut down. The NBII—established in 1994 as part of the then National Biological Service of the Department of the Interior—served as a national network for biodiversity information within the U.S. The program’s database allowed researchers to access information ranging from taxonomic data to research on wildlife diseases. According to the NBII termination webpage, without the program, researchers will 18

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has announced a national ban on the import of four snake species: the Burmese python (Python molurus bivittatus), the yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus), the two species of African rock pythons (Python sebae and Python natalensis). Generally imported as pets then released into the wild, the snakes are a threat to native species in the Everglades. Under the new restrictions, the U.S. will declare the four species “injurious” under the Lacey Act, making it illegal to import or sell the snakes across state lines. Imports of five other large exotic snake species (the boa constrictor, the reticulated python, the green anaconda, the DeSchauensee’s anaconda, and Beni anaconda) are also being considered for listing as injurious species. Florida has already listed several non-native constrictors, including Burmese and African rock pythons, as conditional species. Conditional snakes may no longer be acquired as personal pets, although those who owned snakes before July 2010 and who maintain a $100 annual license are allowed to keep their animals. Reptile dealers, breeders, exhibitors, and researchers may possess and transport these species under tight bio-security guidelines. Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

General The Obama Administration has released a draft of the National Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy—the firstever national plan to coordinate responses to fish, wildlife, plants, and their ecosystems across the U.S. The draft—developed by more than 100 researchers and managers from federal, state, and tribal agencies—is a framework for decision makers who manage wildlife and habitat, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. In addition to exploring the effects of climate change, the draft encourages agencies to coordinate responses to global warming while developing strategies to address its impacts. Source: National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy

For comments or suggestions, or to submit news briefs for the State of Wildlife section, contact Divya Abhat, divya@wildlife.org.

with minimal interference. Once the bears learn to fend for themselves and develop critical survival skills, researchers will determine if they can be released into the wild. There are currently 1,590 pandas living in the wild. Source: Pandas International

International News and events affecting wildlife and wildlife professionals around the world China The Chinese authorities recently released six young captive pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) into semi-wild enclosures outside Dujiangyan in China’s Sichuan Province as part of an ongoing effort to help the endangered bears adapt to the wild. Similar attempts in the past have been largely unsuccessful. Authorities last released a captive panda in 2006 and found it dead less than a year later, possibly killed by wild pandas. This time, however, scientists plan to release the six pandas in stages, in hopes of increasing their chances of survival. After spending at least two months in their new enclosures, the pandas will be released into a larger fenced hillside valley. The area will be fitted with security cameras so researchers can monitor the pandas’ progress

In an ongoing effort to protect China’s declining population of Amur (Siberian) tigers (Panthera tigris altaica), a group of volunteers recently joined forces in Northeast China and cleared 162 illegal wire snares set up by poachers. The snares are typically placed to trap roe deer and rabbits, however they occasionally trapped tigers as well. The volunteer effort—organized by the Forestry Department of Heilongjiang Province, the Forestry Industry Bureau of Heilongjiang Province, Harbin Newspaper Company, and the Wildlife Conservation Society—lasted six days. Volunteers included computer engineers, college students, and doctors who braved freezing temperatures as they searched for traps. According to WCS estimates, fewer than 3,500 tigers remain in the wild, of which 1,000 are breeding females. Source: Wildlife Conservation Society

Africa Last year, authorities made a record 13 large-scale ivory seizures totaling more than 23 tonnes, making 2011 the worst year on record for elephant poaching since ivory sales were banned in 1989. All the seizures involved ivory that was smuggled from Africa into Asia, where an increase in wealth appears to be accompanied by a growing demand for ivory ornaments. According to researchers with TRAFFIC—an international wildlife trade monitoring network—Asian organized criminal syndicates that have immersed themselves in African societies are largely to blame for the increase in ivory smuggling. Researchers fear that if current levels of poaching continue in West and Central Africa, countries such as Chad could lose their elephant populations. Source: TRAFFIC

General

Credit: Lucy Vigne

These ivory elephants and other products were being sold illegally in a store in Cairo, Egypt. Investigations for TRAFFIC found more than 8,300 ivory items illegally available for sale in the city, of which approximately 3,000 were produced in the last five years while the rest were carved about a decade ago.

Recent findings published in the December issue of Biological Conservation reveal a growing trend in the consumption of some marine mammals. Researchers with the Wildlife Conservation Society in Alaska and Okapi Wildlife Associates in Canada found that more people in poor countries across the world are eating sea mammals, particularly dolphins and manatees. Research showed that the number of countries where marine mammals are consumed has increased from 107 in the 1970s and 1980s to 125 today. In all, 87 species have been consumed. With population declines in some marine mammal species, researchers stressed the need to reduce human-caused mortalities of some sea mammals, especially in areas lacking proper government oversight. Source: Biological Conservation

www.wildlife.org

“One Health” Drives Wildlife Vets Wildlife veterinarian

Deana Clifford tackles big-picture problems

By Jessica P. Johnson

central to Clifford’s training even as she pursued her master’s in preventive veterinary medicine and Ph.D. in epidemiology at UC Davis.

Credit: Jaime Rudd

Deana Clifford gives a physical exam to a desert kit fox while investigating a recent cluster of canine distemper cases at the construction site of a solar energy facility near Joshua Tree National Park.

eana Clifford can’t remember a time when she didn’t want to work with animals. Her interest eventually led her to the University of California at Davis (UC Davis), where she chose to study wildlife medicine rather than the more lucrative but predictable specialty of pet or livestock care. “You never know what you’ll be faced with or working on every day,” she says. Now a wildlife veterinarian with the Wildlife Investigations Laboratory (WIL) at the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Clifford has started the department’s first program for nongame wildlife health. “We’ve got more species in the conservation gray zone. They are not listed as endangered, but they are nonetheless facing significant conservation threats. My goal is to see what the need is for these species and act proactively to keep populations healthy.” Clifford’s approach to wildlife management is driven by the principle of One Health—an ethic that recognizes how public and animal health are dependent on the interconnectedness of humans, animals, and their shared environment. One Health was

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

During her master’s studies, Clifford took a commercial test used to detect oil content in soil and modified it to measure the amount of oil on bird feathers from oil spills. “It was a turning point in my career,” she says. “I found out that I didn’t like working in a lab and wasn’t great at it. I decided I wanted to conduct applied field-based research to help make recommendations to solve wildlife conservation problems.” During her subsequent Ph.D. research, she used health indices such as reproductive rates, pup mortality, and survival to determine infectious disease risk in island foxes—a species almost driven to extinction by canine distemper virus. She then used her data from the wild population to evaluate a captive breeding program run by the Catalina Island Conservancy and the Institute for Wildlife Studies. “Working closely with island managers … ensured that my research would directly contribute to pressing management needs.”

Going Farther Afield

After Clifford finished her Ph.D., she and her graduate advisor, Jonna Mazet, formed the Health for Animals and Livelihood Improvement Project (HALI), a partnership of American and Tanzanian universities and agricultural institutions that train Tanzanian traditional livestock keepers to prevent zoonotic disease transmission. Water scarcity was forcing humans, livestock, and wildlife to congregate near shrinking water sources. As a result, livestock keepers saw a surge in bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, and water-borne pathogens, all of which potentially threatened human populations. Clifford and her HALI colleagues tested wildlife and livestock for disease and trained locals to monitor disease and improve water quality. “I view wildlife as sentinels for how healthy the whole ecosystem is,” Clifford says. Carnivores are one such sentinel, and Clifford now works with toxicologists and ecologists from the Integral Ecol-

ogy Research Center, UC Davis, and CDFG to track carnivore exposure to rodenticides. The researchers discovered widespread exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides in fishers (Martes pennanti)—a candidate for listing at the federal level. Their data suggest that anticoagulants are present and likely widespread within carnivore ecosystems, a fact that could ultimately affect human health. “This finding can directly drive policy,” says Clifford, who hopes to persuade the Department of Pesticide Administration to change regulations on how these rodenticides are used.

In addition to her role with WIL, Clifford continues to work with HALI and trains graduate students at UC Davis. She is also director of the Envirovet Summer Institute’s Developing Country Session, an intensive three-week summer course that trains professionals in developing countries to create locally-appropriate solutions to improve the health of both animal and human populations. “To affect positive change for wildlife conservation and health,” she says, “wildlife professionals have to cross boundaries and work together.”

Jessica P. Johnson is Science Writer for The Wildlife Professional.

To find a mentor or mentee, go to http://mentor. wildlife.org/about

Mentor Jonna Mazet Professor of Epidemiology and Disease Ecology University of California at Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine

When Jonna Mazet started vet school at UC Davis in 1988, she felt that her options for a specialty were very limited. There were programs for zoo medicine and animal care, but nothing involving wildlife. But during her second year, the Pew Charitable Trusts granted funding to begin the country’s first wildlife veterinary specialty within her program. A short time later, Mazet gave her first conference talk at The Wildlife Society’s Western Section meeting. There, she discovered the urgent need for wildlife vets. “I wanted to help save the world …. I wanted to work where animals and people were in conflict; where making changes in human habits would help alleviate that conflict.” Mazet completed her doctorate in veterinary medicine and continued at Davis, obtaining a master’s in preventative veterinary medicine (MPVM) and then a Ph.D. in epidemiology. Now a professor of epidemiology and disease ecology, Mazet also serves as Executive Director of UC Davis’ One Health Institute and its Wildlife Health Center. In addition, she is Global Director of PREDICT, a team of researchers (funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Bureau for Global Health) that has been tapped to identify and help prevent emerging zoonotic disease epidemics around the world. As a new professor at UC Davis, Mazet met Deana Clifford and mentored her through her MPVM and Ph.D. “We sort of grew up as professionals together,” Mazet says. Clifford then joined Mazet as a postdoctoral scholar on the Wildlife

Health Center’s first international One Health effort in Tanzania in 2006. “In wildlife medicine, there are often more roadblocks than paths,” says Mazet. “Deana was great at finding her way around those obstacles. She is incredibly passionate, so there was no chance for her to fail.”

Credit: Hannah Mazet

Jonna Mazet meets with Maasai pastoralists and international health trainees to discuss zoonotic diseases.

Through the PREDICT program, Mazet and her colleagues have identified about 100 novel viruses in 20 developing countries that could potentially pass from wildlife to humans. “When we look at health problems, it’s easy to ignore the wildlife component,” Mazet says. “I’m very proud to bring wildlife health professionals to the forefront of that emphasis.” While juggling teaching, research, and other duties, Mazet often travels around the globe to teach about wildlife conservation and zoonotic disease prevention. She was recently in Indonesia to train national park staff, government veterinarians, and university faculty in the safe handling of rodents and primates for zoonotic disease surveillance. But Mazet says she’s most proud of her work with mentees like Clifford. “I’ve been so lucky to work on something that I’m so passionate about,” she says. “And I’ve been able to meet and learn from so many amazing people along the way.”

www.wildlife.org

Why Focus on

D sease?

expertise in wildlife disease helps conservation By David A. Jessup

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

ÂŠ The Wildlife Society

Wild lif

lth Hea & D

ase ise

Disease, whether in humans or animals, is broadly defined as “any disturbance in physiologic function that compromises health.” If revised to say “any disturbance in demographic function that compromises ecologic health,” the definition could also apply to wildlife populations and ecosystems. We are used to thinking about diseased wild animals, or the health of a wildlife population, but today, many disease ecologists and wildlife health professionals are beginning to recognize that even ecosystems—whole complexes of biotic and abiotic entities—can become unhealthy and degraded, losing resiliency and sustainability. Given proper treatment and time, sick wild animals, unhealthy wildlife populations, and degraded ecosystems may be able to recover, but therein lies the challenge for wildlife professionals. The following package of articles reflects a growing recognition that disease presents a critical challenge to conservation. Indeed, the field of disease ecology has grown significantly within the biological sciences. More states now have wildlife veterinarians, and more federal agencies and conservation NGOs have wildlife health and disease programs. Within The Wildlife Society (TWS) itself, a vibrant Wildlife Diseases Working Group has emerged to explore health and disease issues, and TWS has memoranda of understanding with both the Wildlife Disease Association and the American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians. Though many wildlife diseases have been around for a long time and show no sign of abating— including rabies, brucellosis, and TB—several devastating new wildlife diseases have emerged in just the last decade or two, such as chronic wasting disease (CWD), chytrid fungus, West Nile In early 2011, fungal virus, high pathogeniinfections took a grim toll city avian influenza, and near Pierre, South Dakota, where more than 7,000 white-nose syndrome. mallards died in a small pond after eating moldy grain from a nearby cattle lot. State and federal wildlife officials bagged and hauled away the dead, fearful that the illness could spread to eagles and other scavengers.

Whether old or new, such diseases arrive and spread in several key ways. These include translocation of exotic species into new

ecosystems, human incursion into previously undisturbed habitats, the illegal wildlife trade (i.e., the bush meat trade increases the threat of deadly Ebola and Marburg viruses), rapid human transportation across the continents (consider SARS and avian influenza), and wildlife farming or ranching (which may allow CWD to pass from captive to wild cervids). Social, political, legal, and financial pressures require wildlife managers to deal with these and other disease issues, whether or not they directly affect wildlife harvest. But common ground can be found, as shown by the One Health movement, which recognizes that optimal health of people and domestic animals depends on optimal health of ecosystems and wildlife. Technology may also hold some exciting solutions. Though it seemed impossible three or four decades ago, we now have several vaccines to help prevent or control disease in free-ranging wildlife, as well as the ability to capture and sample almost any wildlife species. But a word of caution: About 50 years ago, with the rise of vaccine technology and widespread use of antibiotics, many physicians believed that the age of infectious diseases was drawing to a close. It hasn’t. Wildlife professionals need to recognize that dealing with wildlife disease and optimizing wildlife health is something that requires our commitment for the long haul.

Credit: Sharon Toy-Choutka

David A. Jessup (DVM, MPVM, CWB) is Executive Manager of the Wildlife Disease Association.

www.wildlife.org

Transformation through Time How Wildlife Disease Became a Focus of Conservation By Milton Friend

W Credit: Daniel H. Rich

Milton Friend, Ph.D., is Emeritus Scientist of the USGS National Wildlife Health Center.

hen I began my career as an assistant waterfowl biologist in 1956, wildlife disease was not a major concern for conservation agencies. Some states—such as California, Michigan, New York, Wyoming, and Colorado—had small internal wildlife disease programs to investigate wildlife mortality events, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had a program focused on migratory birds.

A significant change came in 1957, when the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies formed what is now known as the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS). Its initial focus was to combat “Disease X,” a mysterious illness (now known as hemorrhagic disease) that was causing mass mortality of white-tailed deer. Since those early days, research on wildlife disease has increasingly become a focus of federal, state, private, and university programs. Indeed, some researchers note that “wildlife diseases are in fashion” (Gortazar et al. 2007), largely due to the major role that wildlife play in the current era of emerging and recurring infectious diseases that affect both animals and humans (Friend 2006). What follows is a brief exploration of how—and why—the approach to wildlife disease in North America has changed over time, and has in turn changed the dynamics of wildlife conservation itself.

In the Beginning: Pre-History

Wildlife disease predates wildlife conservation by many millennia. Lesions in the skeletal remains of

Courtesy of USGS

1891: Early members of what would become the Bureau of Biological Survey (BBS)—including C. Hart Merriam, second from left—work in Owens Valley, California. 24

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

prehistoric animals (Verano and Ubelaker 1992) suggest that disease has long been a factor in wildlife mortality. Some researchers hypothesize that infectious diseases—perhaps caused by hypervirulent pathogens—were a major factor in mass extinctions over the last 100,000 years (MacPhee and Marx 1997). Devastating die-offs also occurred as human colonization, the domestication of animals, and domestic animal movements introduced new pathogens to immunologically naïve hosts. Today, such outbreaks are known as “virgin soil” epizootics (Crosby 1975).

The First Frontier: 1620-1890

The colonization and European settlement of North America is marked by great environmental degradation and overexploitation of the continent’s abundant wildlife and other natural resources. Awareness of disease was minimal, and epizootic outbreaks were mainly seen as natural events that had little consequence for abundant wildlife. People saw no connection between human actions and wildlife disease outbreaks, so there was little incentive for intervention. Indeed, the seeds for addressing disease germinated not because of concerns for wildlife, but only because some major dieoffs had direct negative impacts on human values and needs such as food, clothing, and recreation. 1656: A mass die-off of pelicans occurred in the West Indies. According to accounts made at that time, “so mortal was the disease, that their dead bodies covered many islands.…” (Fleming 1871).

Courtesy of Smithsonian Institution

1910: A botulism outbreak in Utah’s Bear River marshes and elsewhere across the West killed millions of waterfowl and led to the creation of a field lab at the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. © The Wildlife Society

Wild lif

The Second Frontier: 1890-1990

The 100 years from roughly 1890 to 1990 was a period of mass agricultural development and subsequent urbanization. During this era, the percentage of the U.S. population classified as farm residents dropped from 40 percent in 1900 to 1.9 percent by 1990 (Louv 2005). This period also marked the birth of a strong wildlife conservation movement that shifted from protectionism to restoration, conservation, and wise-use stewardship of wildlife resources. Similarly, the concept of wildlife disease shifted from being an abstraction to a conservation concern. Reports of epizootic mortality events began to rise along with changing conditions, such as greater interfaces between wildlife and domestic animals. 1905: The USDA created the Bureau of Biological Survey (BBS), which began decades of inquiry, research, and technical assistance regarding wildlife conservation, animal damage control, wildlife disease investigations, and regulation. In 1939 the BBS moved from the USDA to the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Friend 1995). 1908: Plague in wild rodents appeared in North America, and the western U.S. became the enzootic foci (McCoy 1911, Eskey and Haas 1940). 1913: The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), working with the University of California, began investigating the cause of mass die-offs of waterfowl that had been occurring in the West (Clarke

Credit: Milton Friend

1960s: Ibis eggs show shell thinning caused by DDE, a breakdown product of the pesticide DDT. Awareness of pesticides’ toxic effects rose in the 1960s after Silent Spring was published. © The Wildlife Society

lth Hea & D

ase ise

1886: C. Hart Merriam was appointed to head the new USDA Division of Economic Ornithology and Mammology. Under his leadership, researchers began to study wildlife food habits, migration, and species distribution. In addition, farmers received education about how birds and other wildlife could benefit agriculture through actions such as insect and rodent control.

1913). Estimated bird losses during 1910 in Utah and Oregon alone reached into the millions (Kalmbach 1968, Rocke and Friend 1999). The emerging field of wildlife conservation suddenly had a “poster child,” later identified as type C avian botulism (Kalmbach and Gunderson 1934). California waterfowl epizootics led the state to develop a Wildlife Investigations Laboratory, and Utah epizootics led the BBS to establish a field investigations lab at the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (Wetmore 1918). 1930s: During the ‘30s, wildlife became recognized as an integral part of the conservation whole, viewed as a public trust and managed through science (Leopold 1933). Disease investigations were sparked by a North American focus on cyclical population fluctuations in game and fur animals. 1933: In his book Game Management, Aldo Leopold was ahead of his time in making the radical statement that “the real determinants of disease mortality are the environment and the population, both of which are being ‘doctored’ daily, for better or for worse, by gun and axe, and by fire and plow.” He further noted that “organized effort to understand and control game diseases is still in its infancy.” Such observations made Leopold one of the first champions of the concept that wildlife disease is an ecological issue influenced by human activities. 1936: Franklin D. Roosevelt established the first North American Wildlife Conference, which featured a session on Wildlife Disease and Population Cycles. Roosevelt also established the Patuxent Research Refuge in Maryland, charged with expanding BBS’ focus to investigating diseases that affect free-ranging wildlife (and not just farm or game animals), providing a scientific basis for evaluating disease between wildlife and livestock on grazing lands, and researching disease transmission between wildlife and humans.

Credit: Milton Friend

1973: Thousands of mallards died of duck virus enteritis at the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge in South Dakota, prompting development of the National Wildlife Health Center. www.wildlife.org

1944: The first North American documentation of avian cholera in wild waterfowl took place simultaneously in Texas and California. 1951: Following the 14th North American Wildlife Conference, a committee was formed to determine interest in an organization focused on wildlife disease. As a result, the Wildlife Disease Association was formed. 1952: The Sybille Wildlife Research Station was established by the Wyoming Fish and Game Department as a research facility for the development of wildlife management techniques and wildlife disease investigations. 1960s: The Department of Veterinary Science at the University of Wisconsin at Madison initiated a graduate training program focused on wildlife disease—the first such program in the nation. 1960s: Researchers developed the first field techniques to remotely administer rabies vaccinations to foxes in the wild, work that eventually led to the successful use of vaccine-laden baits to combat rabies in foxes and other species (Rupprecht et al. 2004, Winkler and Bogel 1992). The approach was fueled by growing public opposition to the destruction of wildlife as the main method of rabies control. 1962: Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, which focused public attention on chemical contaminants that were found to be causing disease in wildlife and humans. The growing environmental concerns of the 1960s pushed wildlife conservation towards ecosystem health approaches.

1973: Duck plague, or duck virus enteritis (DVE), caused large-scale loss of waterfowl wintering at the Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge (Friend 1999). This “duck plague crisis” helped advance infrastructure for addressing wildlife disease, in this case contributing to the development of the FWS National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) in 1975. 1975: Lyme disease began to emerge and became a significant and increasingly common zoonotic disease in the U.S. 1975: Nebraska had its first documented outbreak of avian cholera in waterfowl, making the state a new hotspot for the disease beyond Texas and California. 1977: Raccoon rabies emerged in the Mid-Atlantic states as a result of translocating raccoons for hunting purposes. 1978: Parvovirus emerged globally in both domestic dogs and wild canids. 1978: Chronic wasting disease (CWD) was identified in captive cervids, and was first diagnosed in wild cervids in 1981 (Williams et al. 2001). 1979: During a meeting of the American Veterinary Medical Association in Seattle, Washington, the American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians (AAWV) was founded.

1962: Tadpole edema virus (a ranavirus) was identified in bullfrogs as the first significant amphibian disease (Wolfe et al. 1968).

1980s: Early this decade, previously rare tumors in green sea turtles erupted simultaneously into a panzootic, with infections exceeding 90 percent in some populations (Quackenbush et al. 1998, Friend 2006).

1965: The WDA began to publish The Journal of Wildlife Disease, the first journal devoted exclu-

1986: At the first Conservation Biology Conference, researchers restated Aldo Leopold’s perspective that

Credit: Milton Friend

1978: Staff members with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources remove deer tissue to test for chronic wasting disease, discovered in captive cervids in 1978. 26

sively to sharing research and information about wildlife disease.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Credit: P. Bennett and U. Keuper-Bennett/Turtle Trax

1980s: Fibropapilloma tumors—caused by an unidentified herpesvirus—erupted in Florida in the 1980s. This green sea turtle swims at a Hawaiian reef where the disease flourished in the 1990s. © The Wildlife Society

Wild lif

The Third Frontier: Current Time

According to the United Nations, more people worldwide now live in cities than in rural areas (UN 2003). Likewise, wildlife is increasingly colonizing urban environments, a somewhat paradoxical shift from early human settlement of the wilderness. In parallel, infectious disease emergence and resurgence continues as a growing public health and wildlife conservation issue. Many of these diseases have wildlife origins and some can be thought of as “crowd diseases” because they require high density populations to spread. In addition, complex habitat ownership and jurisdictional issues complicate our ability to manage and respond to urban disease crises. All of these factors create a perfect storm relative to disease emergence. In our current era of global mass extinctions (Wilson 2002), urban wildlife habitat has become vitally important for sustaining global biodiversity (Bradley and Altizer 2006). Yet urbanization has intensified the human perception of wildlife as villains because of their role in zoonotic disease. Thus wildlife disease may be seen as a social issue as much as a biological one. Dealing with this requires collective action, not just for the sake of wildlife, but because of diseases’ ramifications for agriculture, livestock, economies, and human and ecosystem health. The question we must ask is: To what extent beyond “crisis response” will the conservation community address this increasing challenge? 1990s to Now: Events in the last two decades prove how critical this question has become. During the 1990s, emerging and recurring disease outbreaks, including zoonoses, took a large toll on wildlife. Newcastle disease emerged and began to devastate cormorants in rookeries through Canada, the Great Lakes region, and at California’s Salton Sea. Coral

Credit: Milton Friend

1990s: Cormorant chicks lie dead on their nest, victims of Newcastle disease, which emerged in the 1990s and devastated cormorant rookeries across the continent. © The Wildlife Society

lth Hea & D

ase ise

“pathogens and parasites are one of the most important though frequently unconsidered aspects of conservation biology” (May 1988). Sadly, little had changed in the 50 years since Leopold wrote those words.

reef diseases intensified. The chytrid fungus became associated with mass deaths of amphibians in the U.S., and researchers found evidence of earlier events (Dascak et al. 1999, Green et al. 2002). Tuberculosis became established in Michigan’s wild deer population, and researchers documented mycoplasmosis in finches as it began a slow spread across the country. The highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus emerged in southern China in 1995, triggering multi-year mass sampling of birds in North America and elsewhere. In 1999, West Nile virus emerged in crows in the northeastern U.S. and began its spread across North America. And a decadal study from 1992 to 2002 found infectious disease to be an emerging major cause of southern sea otter mortality (Thomas 2001, Friend 2006). Even more recently, the U.S. saw its first monkeypox cases in 2003, spawned by the exotic pet trade. SARS emerged in Canada, transmitted by human travelers from Asia, where civet cats had passed the disease to humans. And in 2006, researchers diagnosed the first cases of white-nose syndrome (WNS) in bats, a disease that has since killed millions of these valuable insectivores throughout North America (Blehert et al. 2009). Such sweeping events have commanded a collaborative response from the wildlife conservation community. In 1992, the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Center formed, working with Canadian schools of veterinary medicine. And in 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began to publish the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases to focus specifically on emerging health crises. This action was an ironic contrast to proclamations of the late 1960s and early 1970s that infectious disease had been contained within the developed world. Clearly it has not. Disease eruptions and die-offs continue, and some (like CWD and WNS) represent new or unfamiliar diseases that challenge wildlife conservation and will occupy disease researchers for decades to come.

Find a related, fuller-length essay by Milton Friend online at wildlife.org/ twplogin.

Credit: USGS National Wildlife Health Center

2006: USGS researchers examine a bat that died of whitenose syndrome, first identified in 2006 and responsible for millions of bat deaths across North America. www.wildlife.org

Ills in the Pipeline Emerging Infectious Diseases and Wildlife By Jonathan Sleeman and Colin Gillin

Courtesy of Jonathan Sleeman

Jonathan Sleeman (Vet.MB, Dipl. ACZM, MRCVS), is the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Wildlife Health Center.

Courtesy of Colin Gillin

Colin Gillin, DVM, is President of the American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians and the State Wildlife Veterinarian for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

n the recent film Contagion, a medical thriller released in fall 2011, the fictitious MEV-1 virus—passed from bat to pig to humans— spreads across the globe as easily as the common cold, killing millions of humans and causing mass hysteria as medical researchers race to find a cure. Though it’s Hollywood hyperbole, the film holds a kernel of truth: Researchers believe that the close proximity of Malaysian hog farms to forested areas—the natural habitat for fruit bats—allowed the previously unknown Nipah virus to spill from bats into pigs and subsequently into people, resulting in more than 100 human deaths (Epstein et al. 2006). There is no doubt that in recent times we have seen an unprecedented number of emerging infectious diseases, defined by the Institute for Medicine as new, reemerging, or drug-resistant infections whose incidence has increased or whose incidence threatens to increase in the near future. Many of these have a wildlife origin (Taylor et al. 2001). While this jump may be due, in part, to increased vigilance and reporting, there is a general consensus that current global conditions are creating a situation that is very favorable to the transmission of microbes that cause diseases. (For reviews, see Daszak et al. 2001 and Keesing et al. 2010). Likewise, it’s increasingly important that wildlife professionals become aware

of how and why new infectious diseases spread and what, if anything, can be done to minimize impacts on wildlife.

Disease Pathways

Global trade and movement of wildlife and animal products are opening up new pathways for pathogens to jump to new continents and new species. For example, we have witnessed how quickly monkeypox—a sometimes lethal viral infection carried by rodents and normally restrained to sub-Saharan Africa—found new hosts in prairie dogs and rapidly spread to humans after it was introduced into the United States as a result of the importation of Gambian giant pouched rats for the pet trade (Reed et al. 2004). A recent study of bush meat illegally imported into the United States detected several potential zoonotic viruses using modern molecular technologies, also demonstrating the illegal wildlife trade as a potential conduit for pathogen spread (Smith et al. 2012). Changing land-use patterns are bringing people and wildlife into closer contact, which also facilitates the exchange of pathogens and disease vectors. The propensity of humans in North America to live in fragmented forested areas—otherwise known as suburbia—brings them into closer contact with the

USGS disease specialist Kimberli Miller examines little brown bats in a Vermont cave known to harbor white-nose syndrome. Caused by the invasive Geomyces destructans fungus, the disease can damage wing membranes (far right) and has led to the deaths of millions of bats of several species. Courtesy of Kimberli Miller/USGS National Wildlife Health Center

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Credit: Kimberli Miller/USGS National Wildlife Health Center

Wild lif

There is also convincing evidence that climate change plays a role in disease issues by affecting the phenology of plants and animals, the geographic range and distribution of disease and disease vectors, community and ecosystem composition and member interaction, pathogen virulence, and patterns of disease. (For a review, see the USGS publication Climate Change and Wildlife Health: Direct and Indirect Effects.) Higher summer temperatures, for example, can result in increased abundance of disease vectors such as arthropod midges, and higher viral load in infected vectors (Purse et al. 2008). Midges in turn can transmit orbiviruses that cause hemorrhagic disease and bluetongue, which are severe illnesses in ruminants such as deer. (For a review see, Howerth et al. 2001). This is just one illustration of how climate may contribute to changes in the incidence and geographic distribution of important diseases (Purse et al. 2008, Sleeman et al. 2009). These complex factors, plus the ability of microbes to change and adapt to new environments and hosts—and our nascent understanding of and capacity to address these issues—is creating a “perfect storm” for disease emergence and resurgence.

lations. Chytrid fungus, for example, has spread to approximately 37 countries on six continents, infected 287 amphibian species, and resulted in extinction of several species (Weldon et al. 2004, Kriger and Hero 2009). Such unprecedented mortality events raise questions about the potential ecological and indirect human health repercussions of wildlife diseases.

Outbreaks around the Globe

Credit: One Health Initiative

A Global Toll

The impacts of emerging diseases are global and profound, and result in an increased burden on the public health system, economic losses, human deaths, declines in wildlife populations, and subsequent ecological disturbances. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) provides the classic case in point. HIV is now known to be a zoonotic disease (one transmissible between animals and humans) that originated from similar simian immunodeficiency virus strains found in African primates (Gao et al. 1999). Today, some 35 million people are living with HIV, placing a huge burden on the global public health system.

Although the occurrence of disease in wildlife can be a natural phenomenon, there is an increasing trend of anthropogenically driven novel or introduced diseases occurring worldwide, with severe consequences to wildlife populations. Not all of these diseases are infectious. For example, the widespread use of the anti-inflammatory agent diclofenac acid in livestock on the Indian subcontinent resulted in near extirpation of vultures that scavenged on carcasses containing this drug. Subsequent research revealed that this compound is highly toxic to certain species of vulture, causing renal failure (Oaks et al. 2004).

Rampant disease in livestock and poultry takes a toll on global food supplies. To curb the spread of the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus known as H5N1, for example, more than 200 million poultry have been culled in Asia since 2003, a loss that has had negative impacts on food security for the region (FAO). Beyond affecting livestock, emerging diseases such as the well-publicized white-nose syndrome (WNS) in bats and the chytrid fungus in amphibians also have severe impacts on fish and wildlife popu-

Disease in wildlife populations is not considered a natural process when novel infectious agents such as Geomyces destructans, the cause of WNS, are transported and introduced into native ecosystems. When combined with other stressors on habitats and populations—including those described above as well as others such as pollutants and contaminants—disease in wildlife can have serious conservation and management consequences and raise concerns for wildlife managers and scientists.

lth Hea & D

ase ise

increasingly abundant black-legged tick, the vector for the bacteria (Borrelia burgdorferi) that causes Lyme disease (LoGiudice et al. 2003).

This map gives a sampling of some 30 diseases that have emerged just since 1985. About 75 percent of all emerging diseases are zoonoses—animal infections transmissible to humans.

www.wildlife.org

increased exponentially. Furthermore, the diseases we are encountering are increasingly of concern for multiple sectors of society including, but not limited to, conservationists and wildlife managers, farmers and agricultural officials, public health officials, and all concerned citizens.

The White-Nose Challenge

Credit: USGS National Wildlife Health Center

At USGS’ National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC), microbiology technician Doug Berndt studies a bacterial assay to determine the cause of a wildlife mortality event. Established in 1975, the NWHC identifies and tracks pathogens that lead to wildlife disease.

To help address wildlife disease concerns, the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) in Madison, Wisconsin was founded in 1975. The Center provides technical assistance to identify, control, and prevent wildlife losses from diseases. It also conducts research to understand the impact of diseases on wildlife populations and to devise methods to more effectively manage these disease threats. Beginning with studies of duck plague (or duck viral enteritis) and avian botulism, which can cause large-scale losses of waterfowl, the NWHC has expanded its investigations to study a wide range of diseases including avian influenza, sylvatic plague, chronic wasting disease, and amphibian and coral diseases, among others. Of particular concern is the fact that since the 1990s the number of new diseases and their severity has

Some Disease-Driven Wildlife Population Declines Species

Pathogen/Disease

Geographic Area

Amphibians (multiple)

Chytrid fungus

Worldwide

California condor

Lead poisoning

Western U.S.

Bighorn sheep

Pneumonia complex

Western U.S.

Harbor seal

Phocine distemper

United Kingdom

Tasmanian devil

Transmissible cancer

Australia

European red squirrel

Pox virus

United Kingdom

Asian vultures

Diclofenac acid

Indian subcontinent

Black-footed ferret

Sylvatic plague

Western U.S.

Desert tortoise

Respiratory disease

Western U.S.

Ethiopian wolf

Rabies

Central Ethiopia Credit: USGS National Wildlife Health Center

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

One focus of work at the NWHC, white-nose syndrome (WNS) offers a vivid case study of the consequences of an emerging disease on wildlife populations. (For a review, see Blehert et al. 2011). Biologists in New York first recognized WNS as a concern during the winter of 2007 when they identified several hibernacula with bats exhibiting unusual behavior such as flying during daytime, roosting in large numbers near entrances, and delayed or lack of response to human disturbance. Furthermore, bats exhibited visible white growth on their muzzles, ears, and wings, which gave the disease its name. Most disturbing were the large number of bat carcasses seen littering the floors of some surveyed caves. The NWHC and partner organizations conducted detailed diagnostic investigations and identified the white growth as Geomyces destructans, a cold-loving fungus new to science. What was particularly unusual is that when researchers microscopically examined the skin of these infected bats, they discovered that this was not an infection like athlete’s foot (i.e., a superficial, irritating, but rarely lethal condition). Instead, it was an invasive, destructive infection causing marked disruption to the wing membrane. Subsequent experimental work has confirmed that G. destructans is the sole causative agent for WNS (Lorch et al. 2011), and work is ongoing to determine the mechanism by which the fungus kills its host. In the meantime, in the four to five years since its detection, this disease has spread to 16 states and four Canadian provinces and caused the deaths of at least one million hibernating bats. Epidemiologically, the disease is demonstrating the classic epidemic pattern of spread when a new infectious agent is introduced into an immunologically naïve population. The pathogen is able to exploit a new host, which is unable to fight the infection due to lack of previous exposure and immunity. In this case, bats may be uniquely susceptible to infection with G. destructans during hibernation, as studies with other hibernating mammals have shown that immunosuppression © The Wildlife Society

Wild lif

The explosive spread of a disease has been seen many times before throughout history, from the decimation of Native American peoples after European explorers brought measles and smallpox to the New World, to the more recent emergence of West Nile virus in North America. So where did G. destructans come from? As it turns out, it might be modern European explorers who have brought this pathogen to North America. Recent studies have shown that G. destructans is commonly found on European bats, but without the associated clinical illness and mortality. Thus, the prevailing hypothesis is that European bats have co-existed with this fungus for many years, and that it was somehow accidentally transported to a cave in New York, possibly on the boots or equipment of a person who previously visited a European cave.

lth Hea & D

ase ise

is a natural function of hibernation. Additionally, underground environments in which bats hibernate are ideal for the growth of this cold-loving fungus.

can be effective, most are expensive, lack any assurance of success, and can be unpalatable to the general public. These include population reduction through culling, trapping, or other lethal means; use of vaccines or other biologics; and environmental modification such as habitat improvements, draining wetland impoundments, fencing, or changes in farming practices.

The Bigger Picture

How do we achieve the Herculean (or possibly Sisyphean) task of addressing or preventing emerging wildlife diseases? One approach involves the One Health concept. Recently revised, the idea originally came from the “One Medicine” concept, which was further developed in the 1980s by Calvin Schwabe

However it got here, its consequences extend far beyond the bats themselves. Because bats prey on numerous insect species, they provide important ecosystem services with implications for forests, agriculture, and human health. By some conservative estimates, bats contribute at least $3.7 billion dollars to the U.S. agricultural economy in insect control, and this estimate does not include the economic and environmental costs of increased use of pesticides that will be needed to suppress insect populations if the bats vanish (Boyles et al. 2011).

Prevention is the Cure

White-nose syndrome will not be the last emerging disease to affect wildlife. We therefore must do what we can to prevent subsequent diseases and mitigate their impacts. Disease outbreaks start locally, and wildlife managers are all too familiar with the need for rapid diagnosis and response. State and federal wildlife management agencies are responsible for managing the wildlife species within their geopolitical boundaries, and many are using expensive management and surveillance activities to detect and prevent the spread of diseases such as chronic wasting disease and bovine tuberculosis. Disease prevention is obviously the best method to protect the health of wildlife populations, as once a disease has been introduced into a population it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to control or eradicate. The challenge is that although there are some wildlife disease management tools that © The Wildlife Society

Credit: Fred Allendorf

of the University of California at Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. It was defined as the study of health and disease regardless of species differences between human and animals, outlining the common connections between veterinarians and physicians. Today this concept has taken on a greater relevance given the 21st-century threats to human, animal, and ecosystem health. The One Health movement recognizes that human, domestic animal, and wildlife health are all interconnected within the context of ecosystem or environmental health. It requires the collaborative effort of multiple disciplines— working locally, nationally, and globally—to attain optimal health for people, animals, and our environment, and it provides a theoretical model that can be used to develop solutions.

Swabbing the skin of a boreal toad, USGS researcher Blake Hossack demonstrates how to detect the presence of amphibian chytrid fungus, a relatively recent disease that has spread to countries on six continents and led to several species extinctions.

www.wildlife.org

In the field, a researcher with the USGS National Wildlife Health Center examines a duck for potential pathogens. At the NWHC, another researcher tests a crow for West Nile virus. Such efforts advance the center’s mission to identify and prevent wildlife diseases.

the health of wildlife are critical first steps for maintaining healthy populations. Furthermore, developing tools to prioritize these threats is important for the development of effective management plans and allocation of precious resources, and would serve as the foundation for future research. Future surveillance efforts should be based on risk analysis, investigation of potential exposure pathways, and improved knowledge of reservoirs of potential emerging pathogens. Among the more promising advances toward predicting and preventing emerging diseases: Credit: USGS

Credit: USGS National Wildlife Health Center

With the One Health initiative as a guide, we endorse the creation of a collaborative North American Wildlife Health Strategy that would establish a framework to address the continent’s most pressing wildlife health issues. This strategy should emphasize the importance of a collaborative approach to mitigate the impact of wildlife diseases and other stressors on wildlife, domestic animal, and human health, and could provide an operational framework by which institutions with a stake in wildlife health will cooperate and collaborate to achieve optimal outcomes for human, animal, and ecosystem health. In addition, a new paradigm in disease surveillance and research is needed. The advent of new analytical models and bench assays will provide us with the mathematical and molecular tools to identify and anticipate threats to wildlife, understand the distribution, dynamics, and impacts of disease, and ultimately provide better information for guiding management decisions. Diagnosing and understanding disease agents and other factors that threaten 32

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

• New molecular genetic sequencing techniques have opened up avenues for pathogen discovery not previously available. • The application of spatially referenced databases such as GIS allows for risk assessments that can assist in targeting surveillance to high-risk populations and geographic locations. • Integration and analysis of real-time data from a variety of sources—including human and animal health data with climatic, ecological, hydrological, geological, and socioeconomic data, among other sources—can help researchers better understand drivers of disease emergence and generate predictive models that help direct resources to geographic areas and populations (so-called hotspots) with the greatest need (Jones et al. 2008). Understanding the effectiveness of current management tools and developing novel disease management schemes will be critical for protecting the health of wildlife populations as well as domestic animals and humans. Finally, increased global capacity to detect, diagnose, and provide robust and rapid responses to wildlife disease outbreaks and emerging diseases will also be essential. Clearly the fish and wildlife community bears a great responsibility to be ever watchful for the next emerging disease outbreak and work collaboratively to stop it in its tracks. This is a shared responsibility we all must willingly accept. There is no room for hesitation or for us to make mistakes. Too much is at stake. This article has been reviewed by subject-matter experts.

For a full bibliography and additional resources, including a list of major wildlife health and disease centers and programs, go to wildlife.org/twplogin.

AVIAN TESTED In use by hundreds of Avian Biologists

ANIMAL CATCHER

E V I T C E F F E T S ANE and CO

SAFE, HUM

E U C S E R & E R U T P A C BIRD

The perfect solution for: • TAG & RELEASE PROGRAMS • BIRD RECOVERY AND RESCUE • VETERINARY APPLICATIONS • ANIMAL CONTROL • ZOOLOGISTS

Large and Small,

The Super Talon Nets ’em All. SEE VIDEOS ONLINE OF SAFE BIRD CAPTURES IN-FLIGHT AND STATIONARY The Super Talon comes in its own

FIELD-READY TRAVEL CASE

The Super Talon Kit contains: launching handle, 4 pre-loaded and reusable net heads, 20 air cartridges, spare parts and accessories.

The Future of Law Enforcement Today (760) 777-7229

www.humanecapture.com advancedweapons@msn.com

The Art of Chemical Capture Advances in wildlife capture pharmacology By Michael D. Kock, William R. Lance, and David A. Jessup

Credit: Satya Gautam Bhalla

Michael D. Kock (BVetMed, MRCVS, MPVM) is Senior Field Veterinarian for the Wildlife Conservation Society, based in the Western Cape, South Africa.

n the early 1960s, when Kariba Dam rose between Zambia and Zimbabwe backing up the Zambezi River to form Lake Kariba, thousands of wild animals—including antelope, black rhinoceros, carnivores, and reptiles—became stranded in a rapidly changing landscape. Conservationists soon began a wildlife salvage effort dubbed “Operation Noah,” which included some of the first efforts to chemically immobilize wildlife using dart guns. Those early efforts were well meaning, but many animals died, were injured, or just couldn’t be caught—a situation that was dangerous for both the wildlife and their would-be captors. Author A. E. Harthoon described the early days of chemical capture in his 1976 book Flying Syringe, in which he stated: “The successful handling of animals with drugs, capture in the wild, and restraint for various purposes can ultimately be performed successfully only by those who … put the animal first; by those who are guided by a code, as medical doctors and veterinarians are subjected to a code;

by those who have an awareness of the value of animal life; and by those who set their sights on the welfare of all animals with which they work ….” Those words still ring true today for wildlife professionals who practice “capture and immobilization,” which simply means rendering a wild animal unable to flee. This can be accomplished by physical methods (nets, traps, and ropes) or with chemicals—drugs that tranquilize, cause deep sedation, provide anesthesia, or yield a combination of the three (see chart on page 36). Practitioners of chemical immobilization often refer to it as “knock down,” and call the time from chemical darting to recumbancy “knock down time.” However, multiple variables affect the safety and effectiveness of the procedure, including drug type, dosage, dart weight and placement, length of time for the dose to take effect, length of time the animal is incapacitated, and ability to reverse the effects of the drug so the animal can recover safely. These variables must be carefully assessed or animals may suffer serious injury during capture such as “capture myopathy”—severe muscle damage and often death due to the combined effects of exertion, acidosis, hyperthermia, electrolyte imbalance, and fear during capture and handling. This and other problems came into play during “Operation Noah” at Lake Kariba, conducted at a time when the drugs used for chemical capture were very limited. Nicotine and succinylcholine, for example, were primitive and often highly toxic. Etorphine and acepromazine were better, but for some species and at some doses, injected animals would become excited and run to the point of exhaustion or death. Others suffered severe respiratory depression when the drugs’ effects peaked. In North America at that time, similar problems were occurring with deer, moose, bears, mountain lions, and other species.

Credit: Mark Gocke, Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Darted from a helicopter in Wyoming, this female moose has been anesthetized with a combination of thiafentanil, azaperone, and medetomidine (TAM) so she can be assessed and radio-collared. The anesthesia has left this animal sternally recumbent, semi-conscious (with eyes open but unfocused), breathing well, and calm enough to resist struggling— signs that TAM is well-suited for use in wildlife.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Today, half a century later, the drugs and delivery devices used for chemical immobilization have advanced tremendously. We have new pharmaceutical drugs, more-effective combinations, and © The Wildlife Society

Wild lif

lth Hea & D

ase ise

delivery tools designed to perform a host of specialized tasks on virtually all species and sizes of animals. Among the most powerful pharmaceuticals ever developed, the new-generation drugs are critical tools for professionals involved in wildlife health, disease, and management.

The Challenges of the Past

The development of new drugs and drug combinations were spurred by the problems experienced in the field. Paralytic drugs like succinylcholine, for example, provided animals no relief from fear, pain, or stress of capture. In addition, they were not reversible and the safety margin was low: A 10 to 15 percent dosage miscalculation on the low side could fail to immobilize, and on the high side could cause suffocation due to paralysis of respiratory muscles. Drugs that could provide anesthesia, deep sleep, and maybe even short-term amnesia were needed. Some improvement came with development of the narcotic etorphine in the late 1960s. When combined with the tranquilizer acepromazine, it could provide anesthesia and pain relief. It was also readily reversible. Etorphine became the workhorse for capture of large African species like elephants and rhinos, but it had its drawbacks. It was very expensive, and the form available in North America was so dilute that very large, heavy darts had to be used. It was also only available to those with a special high-level federal government license. Other next-generation drugs also had pros and cons. The dissociative anesthetic phencyclidine, for example, could be combined with a tranquilizer and used on most big carnivores and primates, yet it could take half a day or more to wear off and it had high abuse potential as a street drug (sold as PCP or “angel dust”). Likewise, the alpha adrenergic sedative xylazine could make some domestic stock or zoo hoofstock sleepy and even immobile, but it was ineffective on truly wild animals and it could depress breathing, keep animals down for hours, and lead to serious side effects such as bloat and regurgitation. Finally ketamine with a tranquilizer or sedative would work effectively on many species, but required darts proportionally the size of harpoons. Wildlife managers needed drugs that were concentrated enough that they could be delivered in a 1-, 2-, or at most 3-cc dart. Larger darts were just too heavy (which could cause injury to the animal), too erratic in flight, and too limited in accuracy at distance. Managers also needed drugs © The Wildlife Society

Credit: Michael D. Kock

A black rhino in Namibia falls on its back, immobilized by a high dose of the narcotic etorphine and tranquilizer azaperone mixed with hyaluronidase (a spreading factor) delivered in a robust Cap-Chur dart (see Palmer version at far right). Heavy steel and aluminum darts like the Cap-Chur can pierce thick skin and deliver drugs with an explosive charge. Newer, lighter darts (like the Dan-Inject, at left) can hold the same liquid volume but weigh half as much and have smaller needles, thus they strike more gently and prevent injury to thinner-skinned species.

that would act as quickly as five minutes or less so that darted animals wouldn’t have time to outdistance humans, take cover, or disappear. Quick down times would also reduce muscular exertion, capture myopathy, high body temperature, and potential entanglement or injury. Rapid induction of anesthesia would be of little value, however, if heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration rate and volume were compromised. If an immobilization drug or combination lasted for many hours and could not be easily reversed, free-ranging prey species like deer and antelope would be vulnerable to predators or scavengers. These problems have been solved by modern drugs such as the narcotic thiafentanil and/or the sedative medetomidine. When either of these is combined with the right tranquilizer or dissociative anesthetic, the combination can provide the almost magical properties of quick induction, balanced effects, and quicker and clean reversal.

Gifts of Modern Alchemy

A major advancement came in the 1980s with development of the first non-narcotic reversible wildlife immobilization combination. It was a mixture of

Credit: Michael D. Kock

Co-author Affiliations William R. Lance (DVM, Ph.D., Dipl. ACZM) is Chief Executive Officer of Wildlife Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in Fort Collins, Colorado. David A. Jessup (DVM, MPVM, CWB) is Executive Manager of the Wildlife Disease Association.

www.wildlife.org

Pharmacology 101 A glossary of basic chemical immobilization drugs The drugs used for chemical immobilization of wildlife are from five general classes: dissociative anesthetics, sedatives (and sedative reversals), narcotics (and narcotic reversals), tranquilizers, and paralytics. Each class of drugs acts at different nerve synapses, blocking or potentiating natural neurotransmitter chemicals. What follows is a brief rundown of a few common drugs in each class, with notes on the decade they became available for wildlife use, potency, and duration of action. Potency numbers of 5x or 10x, for example, indicate a potency of five or ten times that of the least potent drug in the class. Dissociative Anesthetics Dissociative anesthetics override several neurotransmitters that communicate between the brain and body, rendering animals unconscious and relatively insensitive to pain or stress. They are also called psychotomimetic (psychosis mimicking) drugs, or cyclohexamines because of their common chemical structure.

Drug ketamine tiletamine phencyclidine

Decade 1970s-80s 1980s-90s 1970s

Relative Potency 1 5x 10x

Duration of Average Dose 45 minutes to 1 hour 1.5 to 3 hours 2 to 12 hours

Sedatives Sedatives render animals sleepy and uncoordinated, but usually not immobile or anesthetized if used alone. The three sedatives listed below work primarily on the alpha-2 adrenergic receptors in the brain and body and therefore are also called alpha-2 agonists. These drugs can have negative respiratory, cardiovascular, digestive, and other side effects. The newer and more potent drugs have fewer side effects and can be more readily reversed.

Drug xylazine detomidine medetomidine

Decade 1970s-80s 1990s 1990s

Relative Potency Duration of Average Dose 1 The duration of effect of these drugs 2x is highly dependent on dosage 10x and species sensitivity.

Sedative Reversals Alpha-2 antagonist drugs displace alpha-2 agonist sedatives from receptor sites in the brain, thereby reversing the effects of sedation. As sedative reversal drugs have evolved, both potency and receptor site specificity have increased, and less species variation is seen.

Drug yohimbine tolazoline atipamezole

Decade 1980s 1990s 1990s

Relative Potency Duration of Average Dose 1 These reversal drugs act within minutes 3-5x if given intravenously; they last longer but are 10x less predictable if given intramuscularly.

Narcotics These are traditionally drugs that produce sleep. They bind to various types of opiate receptors in the brain and body, rendering an animal immobile and unconscious if dosed correctly. However, narcotics alone do not usually produce balanced anesthesia. They can be reversed by narcotic antagonist drugs that occupy opiate receptor sites but produce less or no narcotic effect.

Drug butorphanol etorphine thiafentanil carfentanil

Decade 1990s-2000s 1960s 2000s 1980s

Relative Potency 1 10x 30-40x 40-50x

Duration of Average Dose 30-45 minutes 1.5 to 2 hours 30 to 45 minutes several hours to half a day

Narcotic Reversals Of the three narcotic reversal drugs listed below, the first two are pure antagonists while the third is a weak agonist with antagonist properties. Given intravenously these drugs all act within 30 seconds to a few minutes—a bit slower if given intramuscularly—but have variable durations of action (half-life) in an animal’s body. Diprenorphine is not recommended for reversal of any narcotic except etorphine.

Drug naloxone naltrexone diprenorphine

Decade 1980s 1980s 1970s

Relative Potency 1 1 10x

Duration of Average Dose an hour or two many hours to a day a few hours

Tranquilizers These drugs produce calmness, may cause a lack of coordination, and reduce fear or sensitivity to stress. They are not able to immobilize animals if used alone but may balance undesirable side effects of anesthetic, narcotic, or sedative drugs, and they facilitate transport and holding of wild animals. There are several different families of tranquilizers. Butyrophenones: azaperone, haloperidol Benzodiazepines: diazepam, zolazepam, midazolam Phenothiazines: promazine, propionyl promazine, acepromazine Long-acting: zuclopenthixol (lasts 3-4 days) and perphenazine (a week to 10 days) Paralytics Once commonly used in the 1960s and ‘70s, paralytics—such as succinylcholine and gallemine triethiodide—block the action of acetylcholine, which transmits messages between nerves and muscles, leaving muscles flaccid or somewhat tonic. Some are depolarizing, meaning they cannot be reversed and must be metabolized for effects to wear off. Others are non-depolarizing. Because paralytics have a low safety margin and produce no anesthesia or loss of sensitivity to pain, stress, or fear, they are now considered inhumane for general use.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Wild lif

A further improvement arrived in the 1990s when Telazol®—a commercial combination of tiletamine and zolazepam—became available, a much better alternative for a wide variety of species than any KX combination. Soon thereafter, even Telazol was vastly improved upon by combining ketamine or Telazol with medetomidine (which is at least 10 times more potent than xylazine), then reversing with much more effective alpha adrenergic antagonist drugs like tolazoline or atipamezole. The medetomidine-based combinations were more applicable to hooved animals and allowed most medium-sized species to be immobilized with a 2or 3-cc dart. Those non-narcotic combinations didn’t work well for many larger African species, however. To effectively immobilize species such as black rhino, researchers developed simple yet significant advances. They increased the etorphine dose and augmented the combination with hyaluronidase to increase the drugs’ absorption rates for a more rapid knock down, thereby reducing running, temperature increase, and oxygen debt. The higher doses, however, required more careful monitoring of the animal and a greater knowledge of the intricacies of the procedure, requirements best filled by veterinarians. During the 1990s, etorphine became somewhat scarce due to lack of the raw material or finished product in some parts of the world. A newer narcotic, carfentanil, then in research in Belgium, proved to be a bit more potent and soon replaced many of etorphine’s uses in wildlife in North America. But, carfentanil was very long acting, outlasting the available reversals naloxone and diprenorphine. Animals could therefore renarcotize and sometimes die or be killed a day after immobilization. The solution: Naltrexone, a pure narcotic antagonist, proved to have active metabolites in most species that could provide reliable reversal for more than 24 hours. The narcotic thiafentanil oxalate came to light as a result of the need for a very rapid, safe drug to anes© The Wildlife Society

lth Hea & D

ase ise

the anesthetic ketamine and the sedative xylazine (KX), both concentrated to higher strengths than commercially available. As the ketamine wore off, wildlife managers could then administer yohimbine to reverse the xylazine, and the animal would get up and walk off. Soon there was a KX combination for most North American species.

thetize people, particularly children. It was shown to be effective in elk, and a consortium of veterinarians from the U.S. and South Africa confirmed that it could also revolutionize field procedures in more difficult-to-capture African species like impala, waterbuck, kudu, Cape buffalo, giraffe, and elephant. Later, in the right combinations, thiafentanil also proved effective in eland, nyala, gemsbok, and other elusive species. Its primary advantages are very

Credit: Lonnie Pace and UC Davis Wildlife Health Center

Biologist Mark Ehlbroch prepares to blow-dart a dose of Telazol (a mix of tiletamine and zolazepam) into a mountain lion captured for genetic and disease testing during a study of the cats in southern California. Blow pipes work well for small darts at short distances.

Credit: Colorado Division of Wildlife

Lisa Wolfe (at left) and other biologists with the Colorado Division of Wildlife work on bighorn sheep immobilized with BAM (butorphanol, azaperone, and medetomidine). Safe and reversible with minimal side effects, this anesthetic combination has become widely used on cervids and bovids in North America.

www.wildlife.org

rapid induction (two to four minutes commonly), greatly reduced potential for capture myopathy, improved respiratory and cardiac function, and complete reversal with naltrexone. And because of its potency it can be administered in darts as small as 1 to 2 cc. By 2000, wildlife researchers began to experiment with combinations of up to three drugs from various families including narcotics, alpha-adrenergic sedatives, dissociative anesthetics, and tranquilizers. Combination of varying ratios of medetomidine or xylazine with carfentanil, for example, reduced the initial excitation, running, and muscular rigidity commonly seen in large hoofstock. And azaperone appeared to result in smoother inductions and improved baseline heart and respiratory rates. One such combination called BAM (a mix of butorphanol, azaperone and medetomidine), was initially developed in the search for a safer, reversible, small-volume injectable anesthetic combination that didn’t require the use of the more dangerous and restricted potent narcotics like etorphine and carfentanil. BAM is now becoming the combination of choice for field use in North American cervids and bovids. In fact, its advantages and uses have been so remarkable that it was the first anesthetic combination for wildlife granted a U.S. patent.

Historically, mortality due to the stresses and injuries of capture, transport, and holding of certain species, especially antelope in Africa, were unacceptably high, sometimes hitting 50 percent or higher. The development of long-acting tranquilizers (LATs) for calming wildlife was actually pioneered by the use of tranquilizers in the human psychiatric medical field and the need to sedate or tranquilize for longer periods patients who wouldn’t cooperate. On the animal health side, the ability to tranquilize a hyper-excited antelope or a rhino in confinement or a holding corral for three to four days was revolutionary.

Special Cases: Africa’s Giants

Certain species can present special challenges, and chief among them are the large mammals of Africa. For example, some narcotics (such as etorphine, carfentanil, or thiafentanil) affect white rhinos totally differently than black rhinos. In white rhinos, muscle rigidity, tremors, respiratory depression, and hypoxia occur and can quickly become life threatening. Use of pulse oximetery in the late 1990s revealed just how hypoxic white rhinos were under combinations of etorphine and detomidine and azaperone. Researchers turned to the use of partial or low-dose narcotic antagonists given soon after immobilization to counteract the respiratory depressive effects, improve oxygenation, and produce more balanced anesthesia without waking the animal up. In the last ten years, the use of butorphanol, an opioid agonist/antagonist, has become the “wonder” drug for rhinos. Besides reversing some of the more severe respiratory depression caused by the potent narcotics, butorphanol can be combined with a variety of other drugs and used in a variety of different African species.

Credit: Michael D. Kock

Darted with the BAM combination, a hippo rests sedately as veterinarians approach with blindfold and jaw strap to safely secure the animal. This drug combination allows hippos to remain in water and retain the dive reflex—a key to their survival during sedation—reflecting one of the great recent achievements in safe capture.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Few African species have provided greater challenges to professionals involved in the capture and care of wild animals than the hippopotamus. They are bad tempered and aggressive, massive in size with teeth to match, and live in water much of the time, an added challenge for would-be captors. Hippos once needed to be darted and immobilized on dry land so they couldn’t reach the water, where they would likely drown as the drug took effect. Even if the hippo could be kept away

Wild lif

lth Hea & D

ase ise

from water, there was a high risk of mortality because they have a “dive reflex” and can hold their breath until they die. The reason: their baroreceptors are not sensitive to increasing carbon dioxide in their blood—a physiologic adaptation in most land species that forces them to breath as they approach unconsciousness. Because narcotics and the onset of anesthesia can trigger this dive reflex, the standard advice to veterinarians was, “Do not anesthetize a hippo or it will die.” About 90 percent of the time that was true. If there ever was need for clever alchemy it was in regards to the hippo. Fortunately, in the early 2000s, along came BAM, the magical mix of butorphanol, azaperone, and medetomidine noted earlier. In South Africa, we also add the tranquilizer midazolam (M) to create a four-part combination called BAMM, which allows darted hippos to become sedated and immobilized and still continue to breath, despite retaining the dive reflex. Once the drug combination has taken effect, the capture team can secure the beast in the water and haul it to the shore. If the animal begins to get too light under that combination, a fifth drug, ketamine, may be used for a quick “top up.” Hippo anesthesia is not perfect yet, but both BAM and BAMM are a significant improvement over past options. Midazolam even has an amnesic effect, at least in humans, so the bad memories of capture may not persist. Bravo to the brave alchemists! (To read a recent Africa Geographic article on hippo capture, go to wildlife.org/twplogin).

Progress, But Room to Grow

Alternatives to darting for physical capture, particularly net gunning, have been developed and refined but are not without their own limitations. Major advances have also been made in dart gun design, manufacture, and use. The weights and impact energies of darts have been roughly cut in half, greatly reducing potential for injury to wildlife. As noted, the volume of drugs needed has also been greatly reduced. Professional training in the use of wildlife anesthetic and immobilization drugs, dart guns, and other capture equipment has become widely available and is required in many states and countries. In addition, a number of excellent books and field manuals are now available. In the early days of wildlife capture it was common, and even considered acceptable, if as much

Credit: Michael D. Kock

After sedation, a bull elephant rests peacefully enough to allow a veterinarian to attach pulse oximetry leads (which monitor blood oxygen levels) to the third eyelid. Modern combinations of anesthetics, sedatives, narcotics, and reversal agents can act quickly and last long enough for wildlife professionals to do their work then oversee a safe, complete recovery—the ultimate goal of capture pharmacology.

as 10 percent of the animals darted died or were seriously injured by darts or capture problems. As capture methods, drugs, and anesthesia have advanced over the years, the welfare of wildlife has been improved and injury and losses have dropped to less than 1 percent in most circumstances. That’s a remarkable achievement in technology that saves animal lives, facilitates research, and improves the science of wildlife management and conservation. Those of us involved in wildlife capture can only look forward to the new advancements that lie ahead.

For a full bibliography, a list of recent books about wildlife immobilization, and tips on training in chemical immobilization, go to wildlife.org/twplogin.

www.wildlife.org

The Lethal Jump from Wildlife to Humans Why Zoonotic Diseases Are on the Rise By Michael J. Yabsley, John R. Fischer, and Sonia M. Hernandez

Credit: Jessica Gonynor

Michael J. Yabsley, Ph.D., is an associate professor in a split position at the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study in the Department of Population Health in the College of Veterinary Medicine and the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources at the University of Georgia.

n March 2011, a resident of Deschutes County, Oregon, died of hantavirus, a disease primarily carried by rodents. County health officials said it was the 16th confirmed case of hantavirus in Oregon since 1993 (The Columbian). This is one small example of a growing global problem involving the rise of zoonoses—diseases for which a pathogen can be naturally transmitted from domestic animals or wildlife to humans.

zoonotic disease. The recent emergence of a coronavirus associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), for example, has been linked to the capture and co-housing of civet cats and other wildlife species in live-animal markets in China, many of which were amplifying hosts for SARScoronavirus (Cheng et al. 2007). Its rapid spread to North America and around the world resulted from high-speed airline transportation.

Currently, 75 percent of all emerging human diseases are of animal origin, mostly from wildlife (Taylor et al. 2001). Transmission of diseases from animals to humans is not new, but anthropogenic changes in recent decades have dramatically increased the number of emerging zoonoses. These changes include habitat modification and human encroachment, privatization of wildlife, climate changes, and global travel and transportation. These in turn can affect biodiversity, species composition, and human population demographics, which can then alter animal ecology or interactions with people or other animals.

Zoonoses respect no political or economic barriers. The United States, for example, is the world’s largest importer of wildlife products, yet has minimal pathogen surveillance at points of entry. A new study reveals that wildlife products confiscated at several international airports in the U.S. included parts of rodents and several primate species such as baboon, chimpanzee, and green monkey. Pathogen screening identified retroviruses and herpes viruses in the samples—demonstrating that illegal bush meat brought into the U.S. could aid the spread of potentially zoonotic pathogens (Smith et al. 2012). A major concern is that emerging zoonoses can evolve into strictly human-to-human transmitted pathogens, as occurred with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV)—both of which were initially transmitted to people from primates (Smith et al. 2012).

Often combinations of several such changes are needed to facilitate the emergence of a novel

Transmission of zoonoses occurs through numerous routes including direct transmission by ingestion, inhalation, or contact with the pathogen through the bite or scratch of an infected animal. Indirect routes include ingestion of contaminated food or water,

Co-author Affiliations John R. Fischer (DVM, Ph.D.) is a professor in the Department of Population Health at the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Georgia and is the director of the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study.

Credit: Graham Hickling

The tiny nymph of the Ixodes scapularis tick is the primary vector for the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi. Typically passed from mice to ticks to humans, this bacterium is the causative agent of Lyme disease. If left untreated, the disease can lead to chronic neurological problems.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Sonia M. Hernandez (DVM, DACZM, Ph.D.) is an assistant professor in a split position at the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study in the Department of Population Health in the College of Veterinary Medicine and the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources at the University of Georgia.

Wild lif

Shifts in Community Composition

The epidemiology of several zoonoses can be tied directly to changes in habitat and/or changes in community composition. Lyme disease in the Northeastern U.S., for example, offers one of the best illustrations of how community vertebrate diversity and habitat change alter zoonotic disease epidemiology.

lth Hea & D

ase ise

contact with an infected vector, or contact with infected equipment such as traps or cages. With so many potential causes, consequences, and routes of transmission, zoonotic diseases epitomize the concept of One Health, which recognizes that wildlife, domestic animal, human, and environmental health are all interconnected. A few brief examples show just how tightly woven that connection can be.

Studies on the impacts of climate change are difficult to conduct and interpret due to the possible multiple-level impacts climate change would have on habitats, vertebrate and invertebrate hosts within those habitats, and the pathogens they harbor. Still, researchers increasingly suggest links between climate patterns and zoonotic emergence. In Sweden, for example, the incidence of tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) has risen dramatically since the 1980s, a period corresponding with generally milder climate. One study found that milder winters led to earlier springs and extended falls, conditions

The causative agent of Lyme disease is the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, which is maintained in rodent reservoirs and transmitted by Ixodid ticks. Nymphs of this tick species can use a wide range of mammals, birds, and reptiles as blood sources. The white-footed deer mouse is the most competent and common small-mammal host for B. burgdorferi in old, recovering Northeastern farms and forest communities. The highest rates of exposure to Lyme disease occur in communities with greater populations of deer mice and lower populations of other mammals and bird hosts. Clearly, the greater the diversity of small mammals and birds (the blood-source species for tick nymphs), the less the ticks need to rely on potentially infected rodents. In keeping with this â&#x20AC;&#x153;dilution hypothesis,â&#x20AC;? the prevalence of B. burgdorferi in ticks decreases dramatically in areas that have a relatively intact ecosystem with a high diversity of hosts. However, habitat changes that favor an increase in highly-competent rodent reservoir numbers can lead to increased infection rates in ticks and increased risk of human infection (LoGiudice et al. 2003).

Credit: Brian W.J. Mahy/CDC

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), researchers test a primate to see if it is infected with monkeypox, a zoonotic disease passed from primate and rodent species. The first human cases of monkeypox were identified in the DRC in 1970; a second outbreak took place there in 1996 and 1997. Monkeypox can cause a maculopapular rash on the body, as shown on the palms of a patient (below) from Lodja in the DRC. In Africa, this viral disease has killed between 1 and 10 percent of those who have contracted it.

Shifts in Climate

Changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate-related phenomena are also important factors that can influence the transmission of pathogens. Because many zoonotic pathogens are insect vector-borne, their ecology will be altered when changes in climate impact the range, number, and habitat of vectors. Each vector and host species will be impacted differently, such that some geographic regions may experience an increased risk of vectorborne zoonotic diseases while other regions may see a decrease in risk. ÂŠ The Wildlife Society

Credit: Brian W.J. Mahy/CDC

www.wildlife.org

A Zoonotic Sampler Worldwide, roughly 75 percent of human pathogens are zoonotic and can pass from animals to humans, with new diseases emerging at an increasingly rapid pace. Below is a sampling of some of these diseases and their causative agents, hosts, and routes of transmission, followed by tips on preventing contraction or spread of zoonotic disease. Disease

Causative agent

Transmission route

Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome

Hantaviruses

Inhalation of virus shed in the waste of Peromyscus species and other rodents

West Nile virus

Flavivirus - West Nile virus

Bites from mosquitoes that have fed on infected birds

Rabies

Lyssavirus - Rabies virus

A bite from an infected mammal

Bartonellosis

Bacteria of the genus Bartonella

Bites and scratches from various mammals; transmission by ectoparasites (skin parasites) suspected

Typhus plague

Rickettsia typhi and R. felis bacteria Yersinia pestis bacteria

Fleas feeding on infected rodents (both) and opossums (typhus)

Undulant fever

Bacteria of the genus Brucella

Contact with tissues, blood, urine, vaginal discharges, or fetuses of infected animals such as deer and swine

Tularemia

Francisella tularensis bacteria

Inhalation or ingestion of bacteria from infected rodents and lagomorphs; also, bites from infected flies or ticks

Leptospirosis

Bacteria of the genus Leptospira

Invasion of skin by bacteria passed in the urine of various mammals; contact with contaminated water, food, or soil

Salmonellosis

Bacteria of the genus Salmonella

Ingestion of food or water contaminated with mammal and bird feces

Visceral and ocular larval migrans

Roundworms of the genus Baylisascaris

Ingestion of larvated eggs present in raccoon, skunk, and bear feces

Giardiasis

Parasites of the genus Giardia

Ingestion of food or water contaminated with bird and mammal feces containing oocysts of certain protists; ingestion of undercooked infected meat

Cryptosporidiosis Toxoplasmosis

Parasites of the genus Cryptosporidium Toxoplasma gondii parasite

Ingestion of food or water contaminated with bird and mammal feces containing oocysts of certain protists; ingestion of undercooked infected meat

Trichinosis/Trichinellosis

Parasites of the genus Trichinella

Ingestion of the undercooked infected meat of mammals

Echinococcosis or Hydatid disease

Echinococcus multilocularis and E. granulosus tapeworms

Ingestion of food or water contaminated with eggs from canid and felid feces; canids and felids can contract the parasite by eating infected rodents or cervids

Histoplasmosis

Histoplasma capsulatum fungus

Inhalation of infective spores found in bird and bat feces

Tick-borne illnesses Powassan virus Lyme disease Relapsing fever borreliosis Ehrlichiosis Rickettsiosis (American boutonneuse fever) Rickettsiosis (Rocky Mountain spotted fever)

Flavivirus - Powassan virus Borrelia burgdorferi bacterium Borrelia hermsii and rarely other Borrelia bacteria Ehrlichia chaffeensis, E. ewingii bacteria R. parkeri bacteria Rickettsia rickettsi

All from bites from ticks that have fed on infected reservoirs (such as white-tailed deer, rodents, or other small mammals); tick species include Ixodes scapularis, I. pacificus, Ornithodoros species, Amblyomma americanum, A. maculatum, and Dermacentor variabilis

Credit: Michael J. Yabsley

Baylisascaris procyonis, causes larval migrans

Credit: Michael J. Yabsley

Trypomastigotes of Trypanosoma cruzi, causes Chagas disease

Credit: Michael J. Yabsley

Trichinella spiralis in muscle, causes trichinosis

Credit: J.P. Bond

Amblyomma americanum tick, can transmit Ehrlichia and other pathogens

An Ounce of Prevention Wildlife professionals and others can take basic precautions to minimize their risk of contracting a zoonotic disease. These include wearing basic protective gear such as gloves when handling potentially infected wildlife, blood, or feces. Masks can help prevent inhalation of particulates from dried feces, blood, or urine, which may contain parasites, viral agents, or bacteria. Using appropriate equipment to restrain wildlife can help prevent scratches and bites. Likewise, repellents and protective clothing can prevent bites from mosquitoes, fleas, lice, and ticks. To prevent ingestion of disease-causing agents, wildlife professionals should avoid potentially contaminated food and water, cook harvested meat properly, and never feed potentially infected wildlife carcasses to other animals.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

ÂŠ The Wildlife Society

Wild lif

Artificial Crowding

Zoonoses have also been associated with factors that lead to increased wildlife interactions with other animals and people, such as artificial feeding and baiting or privatization of wildlife for personal or consumptive use. In cases where hunters establish bait stations to attract white-tailed deer, for example, deer congregate and feed nose to nose, easily passing any infection from one to another.

in a wide range of animals and people (Murray and Kazacos 2004). Because B. procyonis does not produce clinical signs in raccoons, the risk is not readily apparent to owners. Kinkajous—a species related to raccoons and also kept as pets—likewise have been found to harbor this potentially lethal zoonotic parasite (Kazacos et al. 2011). All such examples further highlight the risks associated with private ownership of wildlife.

Extensive artificial feeding in Michigan, for example, has led to the establishment of bovine tuberculosis in free-ranging white-tailed deer, making the disease nearly impossible to limit or eradicate. Its resurgence in Michigan has subsequently led to spill-back to domestic cattle and even transmission to a hunter who field-dressed an infected deer (Wilkins et al. 2008). Other examples of zoonotic risks associated with the intentional or unintentional feeding of wildlife include rabies from raccoons and salmonellosis from birds.

When Wildlife Become Pets

Zoonotic diseases—such as toxoplasmosis contracted from cats, salmonellosis from reptiles, or lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus from rodents—have always been a risk for individuals who keep pets. However, the taste for more-exotic pets has increased the risk of zoonotic infection. In 2003, for example, the U.S. saw its first outbreak of monkeypox virus in humans, who contracted the illness from prairie dogs obtained through a wholesale pet store (Guarner et al. 2004). These prairie dogs had been in contact with infected Gambian pouched rats imported from West Africa for the exotic pet trade. Likewise, in Texas in 2002, prairie dogs captured for the pet trade tested positive for tularemia, a zoonotic disease caused by the bacterium Francisella tularensis. Several people were exposed to the pathogen and at least one person became infected, the first known case of prairie dog-to-human tularemia transmission (Avashia et al. 2004). Although it is illegal in many states to keep native wildlife as pets, raccoons have also earned a spot as exotic pets in the U.S., as well as in parts of Europe and Japan. Unfortunately, raccoons are commonly infected with an intestinal roundworm (Baylisascaris procyonis) that can cause fatal larva migrans © The Wildlife Society

lth Hea & D

ase ise

that favor greater tick abundance (Lindgren and Gustafson 2001). In addition, droughts and floods related to shifts in climate have been linked to outbreaks of malaria in South America, Asia, and Africa (Githeko et al. 2000). Such weather anomalies are only expected to increase.

Credit: Michael J. Yabsley

A Call for Caution

For many known zoonoses, simple precautions can prevent infections or minimize risk of disease (see chart). Wildlife biologists, hunters, trappers, hikers, birders, or anyone who may come into contact with wildlife should familiarize themselves with precautions to avoid infection. These can be as simple as wearing protective gear such as masks or gloves, avoiding contact with animals’ bodily fluids, wearing repellent to prevent tick or mosquito bites, or disinfecting equipment that animals have touched.

University of Georgia Ph.D. student Mark Ruder conducts a staged field necropsy to demonstrate the appropriate protective gear— including gloves, goggles, mask, and outerwear—to prevent contact with or inhalation of potentially dangerous infectious agents.

Everyone who comes into contact with wildlife must be vigilent regarding safety, as highlighted by the recent reports of fatal infections of hantavirus, sylvatic plague, and other ills. It is a privilege to encounter or work with wildlife in nature, but we must be aware of and prepare for the risks, or we ourselves may contribute to the spread of disease. For a full bibliography and additional resources—including access to USAID’s PREDICT project that tracks emerging zoonotic diseases—go to wildlife.org/twplogin.

www.wildlife.org

When Marine Ecosystems Fall Ill Harmful Algal Blooms and Marine Biotoxins By Melissa Miller, Raphael Kudela, and David A. Jessup

Credit: CDFG

Melissa Miller (DVM, Ph.D.) is a senior wildlife veterinarian with the California Department of Fish and Game’s Office of Spill Protection and Response.

n November 2007, an unexplained crisis began to unfold in California’s Monterey Bay. There, hundreds of dead and dying seabirds began to wash ashore with a slimy greenish-yellow crust on their feathers. All live birds showed signs of severe hypothermia. The strandings occurred during a “red tide”—a relatively common event in which colored algae bloom, sometimes in massive quantities, and can produce dangerous toxins that sicken or kill marine life. Yet the strandings in Monterey Bay were like nothing any of us had previously seen. Teams from the Monterey SPCA, Native Animal Rescue, and the California Department of Fish

and Game (CDFG) Office of Spill Prevention and Response gathered the stranded birds, which comprised about 14 different species including grebes (Aechmophorus spp.), surf scoters (Melanitta perspicillata), northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis), and loons (Gavia spp.). They were brought to CDFG’s Marine Wildlife Veterinary Care and Research Center in Santa Cruz, where each was examined, blood sampled, weighed, and banded. They were given supportive care—warmth, tube feeding to provide fluids and calories, light detergent washing to remove the crust, rinsing and drying to restore waterproofing. Eventually all the birds were reintroduced to seawater, where they could begin to feed on fish and krill. Through these efforts, about 60 percent of treated birds were saved and released back into the wild. While giving priority to caring for live birds, we also began to examine those that had died. Postmortem examinations revealed no signs of infection or toxicity—which one would expect if the “red tide” was due to a toxic harmful algal bloom (HAB). Many of the birds were thin, which is common after completing the fall migration, but all affected birds had a surface slime or dried, crusty material on their feathers, often with a distinct “bathtub ring” distribution. During investigations of the stranding event at nearby Natural Bridges State Beach, we gleaned our first clues about the origins of this slimy material: The ocean just offshore was the color of strong tea due to a large “red tide,” and copious yellow foam lined area beaches, especially in areas with strong wave action. From the cliffs above, we could see that many seabirds were resting and feeding in the areas where foam coated the water’s surface. Could it be that the red tide, the foam, and the slime on the birds had the same origin and was a previously unknown type of HAB?

Credit: Raphael Kudela

Credit: Melissa Miller Credit: Mike Harris/CDFG

A distinctive line demarks the dark waters of a red tide (at left of image) moving ashore in Monterey Bay in 2007. Caused by a bloom of Akashiwo sanguinea (see inset), the event stranded more than 500 seabirds, coating their feathers with a yellowish crust (as seen on the dead loon above). Scientists scrambled to learn why this harmful algal bloom (or HAB) led many birds to die of hypothermia.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Examination of seawater revealed that the reddish brown discoloration was caused by massive numbers of the dinoflagellate Akashiwo sanguinea and contained small proteins with soap-like qualities called microsporine-like amino acids (MAAs).

Wild lif

lth Hea & D

ase ise

MAAs are normally produced by A. sanguinea and other algae as protection from harmful solar radiation. Only once before, during a coral bleaching event, had there been any implication that MAAs and A. sanguinea could be harmful. We now know, however, that when these soapy MAA compounds escape from ruptured A. sanguinea cells they may act as powerful wetting agents. Tests of the slimy material coating the feathers of stranded birds revealed high MAA concentrations, while feathers of unaffected birds had no MAAs (Jessup et al. 2009). The MAAs proved to be the critical piece of the puzzle that linked the A. sanguinea red tide, the surface foam, and the slimed seabirds, all evidence of previously unrecognized impacts to wildlife. To continue the investigation, we dipped normal bird feathers in clean seawater and compared the degree of feather wetting to feathers dipped in discolored foamy seawater. This simple experiment demonstrated that feather contact with the surface foam caused feathers to lose water repellency and likely thermal insulating properties (Jessup et al. 2009). Subsequent tests using cultures of A. sanguinea grown in artificial sea water in the lab confirmed these findings. In the end, more than 500 seabirds became stranded due to this HAB event, and more than 200 died, demonstrating—for the first time—that widespread wildlife deaths due to coastal bloom events can occur in the absence of toxin production (Jessup et al. 2009). The seabird strandings and deaths were caused by the wetting agent properties of A. sanguinea on feathers, leading to a profound loss of thermal insulation and buoyancy, similar to the effects of oil spills on feathers—the first documented case of its kind. A short time later, in 2009, a very large A. sanguinea bloom occurred along the coasts of Washington and Oregon. Huge masses of foam piled up on area beaches and up to 10,000 seabirds were affected or died. Similar to the 2007 event in Monterey Bay, MAAs were found on the feathers of stranded birds, but no toxin was identified. Possible environmental contributors to this massive bloom were elevated ocean temperatures and ocean conditions that directed nutrient plumes from the Columbia River along the coast, thereby allowing them to “feed” the red tide and keeping it trapped along the shoreline, where high wave action produced abundant foam.

Credit: P. CHILTON/Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team

Draped in thick sea foam, a loon lies dying, one of some 10,000 marine birds stranded along the coasts of Washington and Oregon in 2009 after an Akashiwo sanguinea bloom. The dinoflagellates released proteins with detergent properties that created the foam and destroyed waterproofing in the birds’ feathers, leading to hypothermia.

Systems Out of Balance

Think of the near shore ocean as a giant living soup, full of organisms. These range in size from large (fish, birds, marine mammals, and kelp), to small (crustaceans, bivalves, and sea weed), to tiny (krill, bacteria, viruses, and single-celled algae such as diatoms and dinoflagellates). All these organisms are part of the food chain and tend to remain in fairly balanced proportions to one another. Sometimes, however, the balance is disturbed: The levels of nutrients, currents, and/or sunlight can change such that one organism greatly increases in mass while many of the others die or become scarce. The increasing frequency and severity of coastal HABs may indicate periodic regional disturbance in ecological processes. In the case of Monterey Bay, weather phenomena (warm autumn conditions), lack of upwelling from the deep ocean, nutrient inputs from land, and slow counterclockwise recirculation of nutrient-laden water favored an explosion of A. sanguinea, which soon dominated the surface ocean, crowding out the other members of the living soup, and resulting in “red tide” conditions. This produced hundreds of individual bird “patients.” At the population level, as much as 10 percent of the wintering Northern fulmar population was affected along with significant numbers of grebes, a declining species. Beyond the impacts on wildlife, Monterey Bay itself could be viewed as a patient showing signs of being a “sick ecosystem” (Rapport 1988).

Co-author Affiliations Raphael Kudela (BS, Ph.D.) is a Professor of Ocean Sciences at the University of California at Santa Cruz, Chair of the California Harmful Algal Bloom Monitoring and Alert Program, and CoChair of the National Harmful Algal Bloom Committee. David A. Jessup (DVM, MPVM, CWB) is Executive Manager of the Wildlife Disease Association and Former Director of the Marine Wildlife Veterinary Care and Research Center in Santa Cruz, California.

www.wildlife.org

Across the nation and around the world, investigations of prior HAB events has generated a long list of toxins—including ciguatoxin, saxitoxins, brevetoxins, domoic acid, okadaic acid, and microcystins—that have significantly impacted many marine and estuarian species. The following exploration of two of these—domoic acid and microcystins—conveys just how potent, complex, and devastating these HAB-related killers can be.

Domoic Acid Attacks the Nerves

Pseudo-nitzschia is a genus of diatoms that produce the neurotoxin domoic acid (DA). Though a normal part of planktonic flora, Pseudo-nitzschia species are frequently implicated in HABs, especially along the Pacific coast of North America (Work et al. 1993). During blooms in California, DA has caused illness and death in brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.), sea lions (Zalophus californianus) and many other marine species (Work et al. 1993, Scholin et al. 2000).

Credit: Peter Miller

Common signs of DA intoxication include depression, tremors, seizures, and uncontrolled scratching movements. It has been detected in the prey of affected species as well, confirming that toxicity is amplified through food chains and poses threats to both marine animal and human health (Scholin et al. 2000).

Credit: Peter Wallerstein/Marine Animal Rescue

A sea lion suffers from ingesting domoic acid, a neurotoxin from the diatom Pseudonitzschia australis (inset). This toxin affects the hippocampus and causes seizures, somnolence, and uncontrolled scratching at the throat and head.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

For example, DA has caused “amnesic shellfish poisoning” in humans in Canada and the U.S. (Trainer et al. 2012). The first cases were in New Brunswick in 1987, where three people died and many others suffered long-term neurological disease as a result of consuming mussels containing domoic acid from Pseudo-nitzchia diatoms. Prey items consumed by sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis) in California include clams, mussels, and worms, all of which are potent domoic acid accumulators (Goldberg 2003). In 2003, sea otter illnesses and deaths associated with ingestion of DA-contaminated prey was of sufficient magnitude that federal agencies declared a “marine mammal unusual mortality event,” a first for Southern sea otters. Pseudo-nitzschia ssp. and DA-related HABs often quickly cause stranding or death in species such as sea lions that eat prey like anchovies that feed directly on the harmful diatoms at the ocean surface. DA mortality in sea otters, however, often takes longer to occur—after toxin-laden algal cells and detritus settle deeper in the water column, where they are taken up by invertebrates such as clams and worms that sea otters prefer to eat. In addition to acute poisoning, DA can also cause more chronic effects. Our research has revealed strong links between the development of cardiac disease in sea otters and prior DA exposure (Kreuder et al. 2005), suggesting that this toxin may injure the heart and other organs. Sea otters that survive acute exposure may later die as a result of heart disease, brain damage, or other complications. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, the acute and more chronic effects of HABs may jeopardize longterm recovery of depleted sea otter populations (Kreuder et al. 2003, 2005). Human actions on land can enhance the frequency and intensity of DA poisoning and other HAB events. For example, urea is a nitrogen waste product of mammals and also a popular fertilizer applied to lawns and fields. When urea runs off into seawater, it can enhance both the growth of Pseudo-nitzschia diatoms and their DA production. In Monterey Bay, scientists have documented temporal and spatial associations between urea nitrogen plumes in coastal marine waters (presumably originating from terrestrial sources) and HAB events (Kudela et al. 2008). In addition, DA

Wild lif

lth Hea & D

ase ise

concentrations increase dramatically in the vicinity of river plumes during “first flush” (first rainfall in the autumn) events in Monterey. There is a striking correlation between measured urea concentrations, domoic acid, otter mortalities associated with DA, and riverine inputs in Monterey. Nutrient loading of the coastal ocean may originate from both human activity and from seasonal upwelling events when cold, nutrient-enriched water from the deep ocean replaces warm, nutrient-poor water at the ocean’s surface (Anderson et al. 2008, Kudela et al. 2008, Lane et al. 2009). So Pseudo-nitzschia diatoms and the DA they produce—as well as the severity, frequency, and toxicity of bloom events—may be strongly influenced by nutrients originating from both terrestrial sources and natural sources.

The Menace of Microcystin

Cyanobacteria are ancient and primitive organisms (initially misidentified as algae or so-called bluegreen algae) that have a worldwide distribution. The more frequent occurrence of such blooms has become an emerging global health issue (Guo 2007), particularly because, for humans, these freshwater bloom events are an important and possibly underrecognized cause of human illness (Falconer 1996, Paerl 2008, O’Neil et al. 2012). They can be equally threatening to wildlife. In 2003, for example, hundreds of thousands of salmon died in the Klamath River, at least partially from cyanobacterial toxins. Large-scale cyanobacterial blooms—which commonly occur in fresh and estuarine water—produce potent and environmentally persistent cyanotoxins that can be a thousand times more potent than DA. One of these lethal toxins, microcystin, is highly toxic to almost all living organisms and can cause death from acute liver failure in mammals as soon as two days post-exposure. Its most common source is Microcystis aeruginosa, a cyanobacterium that thrives in warm, nutrient-enriched, stagnant water (Zehnder and Gorham 1960, Davis et al. 2009, Jacoby et al. 2000, Welker and Steinberg 2000). Many human activities—including damming rivers, removing water for agriculture, and discharging nutrient-rich runoff—can create ideal conditions for explosive M. aeruginosa blooms, which are increasing in frequency. Over the last decade, for example, massive blooms have been occurring almost yearly in the Great Lakes (Vanderploeg et al. 2001).

Credit: Stori Oates/CDFG

In 2009, our research team had its own run-in with microcystins. Suspecting that they might be a cause of liver failure in sea otters found dead near the mouth of California’s Pajaro River, we sent a colleague to take water samples from a small lake that feeds into the river. She described the lake as “gnarly green.” Laboratory analysis later showed that the surface lake water had more than a million times the safe drinking water limits for microcystin toxins. Decreasing levels of microcystin were traced to just above where the Pajaro River empties into Monterey Bay, the site where the otters with liver failure were found.

A dead American coot floats in California’s Pinto Lake, where a bloom of cyanobacteria (sometimes also called blue-green algae) generated lethal loads of microcystin. Highly toxic to wildlife, microcystin can lead to acute liver failure in mammals just two days after exposure.

To further confirm the source of intoxication, we added surface water from the polluted lake to tanks of sea water containing shellfish. Both Microcystis and its toxins were readily taken up by crabs, clams, and mussels in the tanks, and the toxins remained at significant levels in the shellfish for weeks. This and other work confirming the deaths of Southern sea otters due to microcystin extends the negative impacts of cyanobacteria and their toxins to include nearshore marine ecosystems and federally threatened marine mammal species (Miller et al. 2010).

Battling the Blooms

Across many lines of investigation into the causes of Southern sea otter illness and death, we have consistently found a strong and statistically robust link between the deaths and exposure to high freshwater

www.wildlife.org

of one of our nation’s most visible and admired marine mammals. Potential negative impacts include reduced biodiversity of kelp forest ecosystems, reduced coastal storm surge protection, and reduced carbon sequestration by kelp forest ecosystems. Sea otters also play an important role as sentinels for potential human health risks, as both sea otters and humans depend on the health of coastal ecosystems and the safety of marine foods for their survival (Jessup et al. 2007).

Credit: Robert Ketley

Skimming thick green gunk from the surface of a California lake, researcher Stori Oates takes a water sample that will be tested for microcystin toxins. Usually occurring in fresh or estuarine waters, large cyanobacteria blooms like this are becoming more common, fueled by warming temperatures and nutrient-rich runoff, and posing potential health risks to humans—as a sign at a Kansas lake suggests (below).

Credit: Jennifer L. Graham/USGS

runoff and/or more urbanized coastlines (Miller et al. 2006, Conrad et al. 2006, Miller et al. 2009, Jessup and Miller 2012). Due to the otters’ critical role in maintaining the kelp forest ecosystem through consumption of kelp-grazing invertebrates, the disappearance of sea otters from this complex and highly productive ecosystem would result in a cascade of secondary effects in addition to the loss

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Freshwater and marine harmful algal blooms are an escalating problem worldwide. According to one report, “In the United States, only a few regions were previously affected by HABs, but now virtually every coastal state has reported major blooms, frequently involving multiple species. Similar trends are reported for freshwater HABs in inland states” (Anderson et al. 2008). Between 1970 and 1995, HABs increased tenfold in China while urea loading increased fivefold (Anderson et al. 2008). The increasing frequency and global distribution of HABs worldwide may be due in part to large-scale ecological disturbances and global climate change. A recent analysis suggests that a 2° C change in average ocean temperatures would more than double the number of days when we might expect toxic Alexandrium dinoflagellate species—which cause paralytic shellfish poisoning—to bloom in the Pacific Northwest (Moore et al. 2008). Understanding the underlying causes of marine wildlife mortality can stimulate mitigation of coastal pollution by nutrients and other possible drivers of HAB events. We as a society must actively address pollution that impairs the recovery of charismatic species like marine mammals and birds, not only because of their beauty, but also to retain their ecosystem services. Although HAB events have the potential to jeopardize our own future and the future of marine ecosystems, marine wildlife managers, veterinarians, and health professionals have the opportunity to diagnose and prescribe treatment for sick wildlife, wildlife populations, and the ecosystems upon which we all depend.

For a full bibliography and additional information about harmful algal blooms and their impacts on wildlife, go to wildlife.org/twplogin.

T o mahawk Live TRap

Researchers’ primary ORIGINAL tool to capture animals safely and securely SERIES for nearly 90 years. • depLoys easiLy in seConds • FoLds when noT in use using 1/10Th The sToRage spaCe as a Rigid TRap

OneYear FA C T O R Y WA R R A N T Y

pRoduCT highLighTs :

• Made from durable, high tensile steel wire mesh. • Galvanized wire for greater corrosion resistance resulting in 3x longer life. now CaRRying The FuLL Line oF...

• Sure-Fire trip mechanism with brass roller system assures nearly 100% capture rate. • Folds flat in seconds, and sets up just as quickly.

Call 800-272-8727 to place an order or visit us online at www.livetrap.com H.B. Sherman Traps Protecting Life By Design since 1955

800-272-8727 • www.livetrap.com • PO Box 155, Hazelhurst, WI 54531

Sylvatic Plague Vaccine Combating Plague in Prairie Dogs and Black-Footed Ferrets By Tonie E. Rocke and Rachel C. Abbott

Credit: Susan Smith/NWHC

Tonie E. Rocke, Ph.D. is an epizootiologist with the USGS National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin.

Credit: Judy Williamson/NWHC

Rachel C. Abbott, DVM, is a biologist with the USGS National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin.

fter achieving promising results in laboratory trials, researchers at the USGS National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) and University of Wisconsin at Madison will soon begin field testing a new oral vaccine for sylvatic plague, a devastating disease affecting prairie dogs and other mammals, particularly the endangered black-footed ferret. Our team has developed and is currently registering a sylvatic plague vaccine (SPV) that uses raccoon poxvirus (RCN) to express two key antigens of the Yersinia pestis bacterium, the causative agent of plague. The vaccine will be distributed in prairie grasslands in the form of peanut butter flavored baits. Consumption of even a single vaccine-laden bait can protect prairie dogs from plague infection for as long as nine months, the longest time period tested so far. If all goes as well as expected, wildlife managers will have a powerful new tool to combat the unpredictable and devastating plague outbreaks that threaten western wildlife and habitats.

Credit: USGS National Wildlife Health Center

An Old Scourge

Though this breakthrough is new, the plague itself has been a long-time thorn in the life of western landscapes. The plague-causing Y. pestis bacterium was inadvertently introduced into North America in the early 1900s (Gage and Kosoy 2005). Ships arriving in San Francisco from plague-affected areas in Asia probably carried infected rats and fleas, the vectors for the disease. It quickly spread to native rodents, thereby establishing a sylvatic cycle and making plague endemic throughout the western states. Because Y. pestis is foreign to the evolutionary history of North American mammals, many species have little or no immunity and succumb quickly to the disease. Infection of an animal by Y. pestis can range from subclinical bacteremia to clinical disease with lymphadenitis and internal abscess formation to sudden death from overwhelming sepsis. Prairie dogs are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of plague, possibly due to the close contact that occurs within their colonies. They suffer mortality rates of 90

Credit: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

All species of prairie dogs—including the threatened Utah prairie dog (above left)—are susceptible to sylvatic plague, which is causing widespread population losses. These losses threaten the survival of endangered black-footed ferrets (above right), which prey upon prairie dogs and use their burrows for shelter. A new sylvatic plague vaccine may be able to reduce infections in the wild.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Wild lif

Black-footed ferrets are also highly susceptible to plague, contracting the disease by ingestion of infected prey or via bites from infected fleas (Williams et al. 1994, Rocke et al. 2004, 2006, Godbey et al. 2006). Even if they manage to avoid plague exposure, ferret populations can suffer if plague destroys prairie dog populations because ferrets rely almost exclusively on prairie dogs for prey and use their burrows for shelter. Conservation of prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets therefore largely depends on our ability to control plague’s impact on these species. Currently, plague occurs throughout the ranges of white-tailed, Gunnison’s, and Utah prairie dogs and in the western two-thirds of the range of black-tailed prairie dogs. Thus, potential plague-free sites for reintroduction of captive-bred black-footed ferrets are limited. In addition, plague appears to exist in an enzootic state in some prairie dog colonies, decreasing the survival rates of both prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets even in the absence of plague epizootics (Matchett et al. 2010, Biggins et al. 2010). Although flea-control insecticides such as deltamethrin are useful in stopping plague outbreaks in prairie dog colonies, dusting of burrows is labor intensive and time consuming, and has detrimental effects on other insects and arthropods such as ants, spiders, ticks, and beetles (Cully et al. 2006).

Efforts to Develop a Vaccine

Seeking an alternative to pesticides as protection against plague, researchers at NWHC began testing an injectable vaccine in black-footed ferrets that was based on proteins of Y. pestis virulence factors F1 and V (an F1-V fusion protein), originally developed for human use (Powell et al. 2005). In our initial studies with older animals, 69 to 85 percent of vaccinated ferrets survived infection with virulent Y. pestis injected subcutaneously to mimic flea bites (Rocke et al. 2004, 2006). Subsequently, vaccination of ferret kits at 60 and 120 days of age fully protected all of them against infection after they had ingested Y. pestis-infected mice (Rocke et al. 2008a). The vaccinated kits developed significant © The Wildlife Society

lth Hea & D

ase ise

percent or more during outbreaks, often resulting in local or even regional extinctions (Cully and Williams 2001). Infected prairie dogs can die within three to four days, and colonies can become eerily quiet within weeks. Along with habitat loss, poisoning, and recreational shooting, plague has contributed to significant population declines in prairie dogs. By some estimates, prairie dogs now occupy only 1 to 2 percent of their former range (Proctor et al. 2006).

antibody titers to F1 and V antigens that persisted for at least three years, indicating the potential for long-lasting immunity (Rocke et al. 2008a). A field study conducted in Montana also demonstrated that the injectable F1-V fusion protein vaccine provided significant plague protection for ferrets in the wild, even when the disease was occurring at enzootic levels (Matchett et al. 2010). Since 2008, all captive-born ferrets have been vaccinated using this F1-V vaccine before being released into the wild. However, vaccination of wild ferrets in

Credit: Randall L. Griebel/USFS

A prairie dog lies dead from plague, caused by the Yersinia pestis bacterium, which is usually transmitted by infected fleas. Plague can be spread as infected fleas leave the carcass in search of new hosts or are transported to other areas by scavengers, such as coyotes and foxes. Plague can kill within four days and has led to local and even regional extinctions of prairie dogs.

the field is difficult and time consuming and does nothing to protect their prey base from the disease. Protection of prairie dogs is therefore vital for effective and long-term prevention of plague in ferrets. For prevention of plague in prairie dogs, we focused on oral vaccine using a poxvirus as a vector for Y. pestis antigens (Osorio et al. 2003, Mencher et al. 2004, Rocke et al. 2008b, 2010a). Because poxviruses (such as vaccinia virus and raccoon poxvirus) have a predilection for mucosal tissues and are highly resistant to environmental degradation, they are ideal vectors for oral vaccines for animals. Once an animal eats the vaccine-laden bait, the virus replicates in the animal’s mouth and activates the immune system. Antibodies against the vaccine antigens are then produced and act to protect the animal against infection by the disease agent. www.wildlife.org

Since the early 1990s, for example, carnivore rabies in the U.S. and Europe has been controlled using an oral rabies vaccine (ORV), which utilizes vaccinia virus (a poxvirus) genetically altered to express rabies glycoprotein (Brochier et al. 1996). The vaccine is distributed in oral baits with an attractant for carnivores. Using the ORV program as a model, we developed the similar SPV vaccine in collaboration with scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The first vaccine we tested in prairie dogs used raccoon poxvirus (RCN) to express F1 antigen of Y. pestis. The RCN-F1 vaccine was incorporated into sweet potato baits that prairie dogs willingly ate (Mencher et al. 2004, Rocke et al. 2008b). Approximately 50 percent of prairie dogs that ate two of these baits survived experimental infection with Y. pestis injected subcutaneously. The vaccinated prairie dogs developed significant anti-F1 antibody titers after vaccination, with higher titers in surviving prairie dogs.

Small baits (below) flavored with peanut butter contain the oral sylvatic plague vaccine, made from a raccoon poxvirus that serves as a vector for Y. pestis antigens. Once ingested, the virus triggers protective antibodies that fight disease. Biomarkers, giving baits a red color (right), are used to help determine how many prairie dogs have eaten baits.

In an effort to increase the effectiveness of the vaccine, we also incorporated the V gene into the viral vector. We used a truncated version of the gene, designated V307, to avoid the immune impairment associated with the full V protein (Rocke et al. 2010a, b). Both RCN-F1 and RCN-V307 vaccines were incorporated into sweet potato baits. We then compared survival rates of prairie dogs orally vaccinated with the RCN-F1/RCN-V307 combination to rates in prairie dogs inoculated by injection with the F1-V vaccine used in ferrets (Rocke et al.

Credit: Dan Tripp/Colorado Parks and Wildlife

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Distribution in the Field

For field delivery, we have selected an effective bait matrix flavored with peanut butter that is highly palatable to prairie dogs and stable for the vaccine. Preliminary field studies in Utah using baits without vaccine have shown rates of uptake by wild prairie dogs greater than 90 percent within three to four days of application (Rocke, unpublished data). The biomarker Rhodamine B is incorporated into the baits to easily determine bait uptake by both target and non-target animals upon examination of a plucked whisker under ultraviolet light (Fernandez and Rocke 2011). Ultimately, we’ll form the bait into a size and shape that facilitates distribution by plane or vehicle. Ongoing field work will help establish the optimal time for baiting different prairie dog species and determine which methods and density of bait distribution will maximize bait uptake. The SPV vaccine is currently being registered with the USDA Center for Veterinary Biologics. Experimental field trials to confirm its safety and efficacy in free-ranging animals will begin this summer and follow a three-tiered approach. In the first phase, we’ll test the biosafety and dynamics of bait uptake in the field through a series of short-term field trials in collaboration with Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The specific objectives are to measure bait uptake by prairie dogs and non-target animals under field conditions, to assess safety—for example, to test for any vaccine-associated pathology such as pox lesions, primarily in non-target animals—and to evaluate the immunological response of prairie dogs.

Credit: USGS National Wildlife Health Center

2010a). Although antibody titers against F1 and V were higher in the animals vaccinated by injection with the F1-V vaccine than in the animals that ingested the RCN-F1/RCN-V307 vaccine, 94 percent of the animals vaccinated with the RCN-F1/RCNV307 vaccine survived compared to the 58 percent of animals vaccinated with the F1-V protein vaccine (Rocke et al. 2010a). Thus, the oral RCN-F1/RCNV307 vaccine provided nearly full protection against injections of virulent Y. pestis. The current vaccine that will be registered for field use consists of a single raccoon poxvirus containing both genes (RCN-F1V307). With that, 60 to 85 percent of prairie dogs survived challenge by Y. pestis even after consuming baits containing this vaccine only one time (Rocke, unpublished data).

The second phase will entail a coordinated collection of complex and biologically relevant data from paired vaccine and placebo-treated field sites within the © The Wildlife Society

Wild lif

lth Hea & D

ase ise

ranges of all prairie dog species to assess vaccine efficacy on a wide geographic scale. Prairie dog survival at study sites will be monitored for several years, and survival rates at vaccine and placebo treated sites will be compared to assess vaccine performance, presumably in the face of both enzootic and epizootic plague. This phase will be a success if plague occurrence is reduced or overall prairie dog (and ferret) survival or population performance is higher at sites with vaccine application compared to paired control sites. Assuming successful completion of Phase I and Phase II, Phase III will be designed to facilitate implementation of SPV as a tool to manage plague in prairie dogs. Initially, vaccine-laden baits will be distributed in prairie dog colonies where black-footed ferrets reside in order to preserve their prey and decrease the source of plague infection. If SPV is successful in eliminating or curtailing plague epizootics in prairie dog colonies, establishment and maintenance of ferret recovery sites should be enhanced.

Credit: USGS National Wildlife Health Center

At the USGS National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin, a biologist takes a blood sample from a prairie dog (above) to measure levels of antibodies generated in response to vaccine antigens. Another NWHC biologist injects a black-footed ferret (left) with an antiplague vaccine containing the F1-V fusion protein. In prairie dogs, the injectable F1-V vaccine is less effective than oral vaccines containing raccoon poxvirus, which protect up to 85 percent of prairie dogs exposed to plague.

Broader Benefits to Ecosystems

In addition to benefitting ferrets, conservation of prairie dogs has important consequences for many other species of animals in the grassland ecosystem. Beyond black-footed ferrets, species such as swift fox and raptors rely heavily upon prairie dogs for prey. Burrowing owls and other animals use prairie dog burrows for shelter and protection from predators. And animals such as mountain plover and mice benefit from the effects of prairie dog grazing, which generates nutritious young grasses and nesting sites (Kotliar et al. 1999). Thus, plague control in prairie dogs would help preserve myriad dependent species. Use of SPV might also ensure survival of sufficient numbers of threatened Utah prairie dogs, enabling managers to balance land-use needs with prairie dog conservation in targeted areas. By reducing the risk of plague, delisting of the species may become possible, and restrictions on development and agricultural usage of land could be lifted. Management of plague through SPV use in other prairie dog species could also prevent serious population declines that could lead to future listing as threatened. Use of SPV to control plague in prairie dogs may also have public health benefits or help ease public ÂŠ The Wildlife Society

Credit: USGS National Wildlife Health Center

fear of plague exposure. Although most human cases in the U.S. are associated with ground squirrels, people have become infected by contact with infected prairie dogs or their fleas (Craven et al. 1993). SPV could be used as an alternative management tool in areas where people encounter prairie dogs, such as cities, recreational areas, military property, or tribal lands. Clearly, controlling plague outbreaks is a vital concern for ongoing ferret recovery programs and conservation efforts for both ferrets and prairie dogs. If SPV lives up to its potential to alter plague dynamics in the grassland ecosystem, ferret recovery, prairie dog conservation, and public health will all reap the benefits.

For a full bibliography and additional photos related to this article, go to wildlife.org/twplogin.

www.wildlife.org

The Last Frontier Eastern Coyotes in New York City By Anne H. Toomey, Mark Weckel, Chris Nagy, Linda J. Gormezano, and Scott Silver

Credit: Hannah Griffiths

Anne H. Toomey is a Ph.D. Candidate at Lancaster Environmental Centre in Lancaster, England and a researcher at Wildmetro in New York City.

n March of 2010, a young 30-pound eastern coyote (Canis latrans) led police on a two-day chase through the concrete maze of lower Manhattan, culminating in the capture of the animal in a Tribeca parking lot near the southern tip of the island. This was not the first coyote to visit the Big Apple. Earlier in 2010, up to four other coyotes had been reportedly sighted in various parts of Manhattan, including three animals roaming the Columbia University campus late one winter night and one temporary resident in Central Park, caught on video at various times over a two-month period (Spodak 2010). New Yorkers, who are famous for their nonchalant attitudes toward anything out of the ordinary, were uncharacteristically excited about the arrival of a top predator in their urban jungle, and sightings of the animals were publicized by media outlets across the city. New York Magazine followed the adventures of the young coyotes in articles and blogs that varied from informative to ironic, in one case speculating that “maybe they are coming to town for the reason we all come to

Credit: Mark Weckel

A coyote roams through a park in Westchester County—one of several parks in New York that’s occupied by coyotes. This photograph was taken as part of an ongoing research project to document coyote presence in these parks and trace their expansion in the region.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

the city: to make it big, find love, and live happily ever after” (New York Magazine 2010). However, just north of the city in Westchester County, residents were taking a much less romantic attitude towards the coyote influx. The first confirmed attack on a human in the county occurred on September 5, 2010 in the town of Rye Brook, which followed two other alleged coyote attacks in June in the adjacent town of Rye. These incidents spread concern among both citizens and wildlife professionals and raised questions about the natural place of a large carnivore in one of the most urbanized places on the planet.

In Search of New Territory

Historically a prairie species whose range was restricted to west of the Mississippi River, coyotes began expanding their range in the 20th century (Kays et al. 2009) as larger predators—such as the cougar (Puma concolor) and the gray wolf (Canis lupus)—were extirpated across the country. A niche expansion paralleled the coyote’s range expansion as coyotes moved beyond the prairies and began to colonize both densely forested areas and major urban metropolitan centers (Gompper 2002). Masters of plasticity and opportunism, coyotes were nearly ubiquitous in the habitat extremes of the East Coast by the turn of the 21st century, ranging from the most remote and forested parts of the region to urban and suburban areas in major metropolises (Fener et al. 2005). In the Northeast, the eastern coyote is differentiated from its western counterpart by its mixed heritage, due to hybridization with wolves on its journey south from eastern Canada (Wheeldon et al. 2010). With a larger body size and slightly more wolf-like attributes, such as a larger pack size (Parker 1995), the eastern coyote has potential to more closely fill the niche of the extirpated gray wolf, perhaps feeding more heavily on overabundant suburban white-tailed deer (Ballard et al. 1999). Though it is unclear how this integration of wolf genes will ultimately affect the coyote’s expansion and success in the New York City urban landscape, recent forays of the animal into Manhattan suggest that dense urbanization is not a complete impediment. © The Wildlife Society

Eastern coyotes first reached the borders of New York City in the 1990s, with the first sighting of a live coyote in the Bronx’s Van Cortland Park in 1994 (Keller 2006). The following year saw two new mangy arrivals to the nearby Woodlawn cemetery, but it wasn’t until 1999—when the first coyote crossed over onto Manhattan Island and made his way into Central Park—that coyotes began to make headlines. That year, on April Fool’s Day, a two-year-old male was the first coyote to be captured in Central Park after a chase led by a team of police officers, parks officials, and news reporters (The New York Times 1999). Following the incident, a note to the editor was published in the New York Times that discussed the inherent “wildness” of New York City parks. The author wrote: “A coyote in Central Park? How about a timber wolf, mountain lion, or black bear? A few centuries ago, all three roamed the wilderness of New York City. One of the fascinating aspects of American wildlife is the different ways species have responded to the development of the country. How their presence in the cities and suburbs will affect our wildlife remains to be seen” (The New York Times 1999). The observation is a keen one. Since 1999, a handful of coyotes have arrived in New York City in the search for new territory, with occasional sightings occurring not only in Manhattan, but most recently in Queens, a borough situated on Long Island. This is notable, as Long Island is the last major landmass in the continental United States yet to be occupied by coyotes (Curtis et al. 2007). There are signs, however, that this is about to change. The first recorded sighting of a coyote on Long Island was in 1999, when it was spotted from a helicopter floating on an ice floe just off Breezy Point in Queens. Since then, at least one other coyote has been confirmed as having made it to Queens (Weckel et al., in press). Unlike the coyotes that reach Manhattan via bridge or swimming—a journey that dead-ends at the Staten Island ferry terminal—the intrepid animals who successfully traverse the outer boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens have access to 100 miles of unexplored suburbia in eastern Long Island. Considerable obstacles face such enterprising coyotes, however. First is the daunting human presence in New York City. With over eight million people, it is the most populated city in the U.S. It is also geographically complex, with four of its five bor© The Wildlife Society

Credit: Tracy Graziano/Pennsylvania Game Commission

oughs located on islands reachable only by bridge, tunnel, or swimming. Despite such challenges, there is no longer any doubt among biologists that the colonization of the city, and even of Long Island, is imminent (Smith 2010). Like raccoons, opossums, and other midsized mammals that thrive in urban areas, coyotes have demonstrated a propensity for making use of humandominated landscapes for their resource needs. At the same time, they manage to avoid humans by traveling at night along natural and man-made corridors such as railroads and cemeteries (Gehrt et al. 2009, Bogan 2004, Way et al. 2004). In addition, coyotes have been known to swim long distances in order to reach new territories. In Massachusetts, for example, they colonized the Elizabeth Islands, which are located a kilometer off the mainland, and a radiocollared individual was documented to have swum a distance of one kilometer across the Cape Cod Canal (Way 2002). Before the famous ‘Tribeca Coyote’ was cornered in a parking lot in the spring of 2010, she had managed to cross the body of water that separates the Bronx from Manhattan Island and to travel at least 12 miles through one of the most urbanized landscapes in the world.

Consequences of Urban Coyotes

The implications of the arrival and colonization of New York City and Long Island by coyotes are huge, as the arrival of an apex predator to any new territory can have significant ecological impacts on the food chain and surrounding environment (Henke and Bryant 1999, Berger et al. 2008). Some of those impacts can be beneficial. For example, because the urbanized Northeast has lacked a top predator

A coyote sits among the gravestones of Erie Cemetery in Pennsylvania. This animal is believed to live in the cemetery, which has an abundance of food squirrels and woodchucks. Though state game officials note occasional reports of coyotes preying on domestic pets, that isn’t a significant issue—yet.

Co-author Affiliations Mark Weckel is the Director of Research and Land Management at the Mianus River Gorge Preserve in New York. Chris Nagy, Ph.D., is a Wildlife Biologist at the Mianus River Gorge Preserve. Linda J. Gormezano is a Ph.D. Candidate at the City University of New York and the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Scott Silver, Ph.D., is the Director of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Queens Zoo.

www.wildlife.org

(except for humans) for over a century, the region has had an abundance of potential coyote prey such as deer, geese, rodents, and raccoons. With coyotes known to prey on fawns and goose eggs (Brown 2007, Messier et al. 1986), it is possible that coyotes could limit the population growth of these and other prolific species, thereby playing a key role in the ecosystem. In addition, where coyotes prey on ungulate and rodent populations, certain types of

Credit: George Andrejko/AZGFD

A coyote wanders a golf course in Sun City, Arizona. These opportunistic and versatile animals readily adapt to human environments and are an increasingly common occurrence in suburban and urban settings across the U.S.

flora may be able to regenerate as grazing pressure is reduced. Finally, there may be fewer incidences of Lyme disease, as abundance of its main vectors— mice and deer—is reduced (Gompper 2002). The coyote’s range expansion from suburban Westchester County to urban New York City to suburban Long Island may also benefit biologists by providing a unique opportunity to monitor, in real time, how a larger predator uses corridors to access new habitat in a fragmented landscape, and to document the rate of contemporaneous colonization. The geographical exceptionality of New York City, where a coyote must first pass through one of the most urbanized places on the planet to reach greener pastures, leads to questions about how a top predator adapts to urbanized living. Our team of researchers from the City University of New York, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the American Museum of Natural History is currently monitoring the arrival of the eastern coyote to New York City and Long Island through noninvasive methods such as camera trapping and the collection of scat. Clearly the arrival of a new predator in urban areas 56

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

can also have negative consequences, particularly in terms of human-wildlife conflict—and wildlife managers will therefore need to establish plans to mitigate such conflicts. Although coyote attacks are still very rare, the perception is that such attacks have risen in frequency across the country (Schmidt and Timm 2007). According to one study, of 89 coyote attacks reported in the period between 1978 and 2003, 79 percent occurred in the latter ten years (Timm et al. 2004). This may reflect greater populations of the animals in human-dominated landscapes, where coyote hunting and active control methods often do not exist, thereby facilitating the animals’ increasing habituation to humans (Timm et al. 2004). Westchester County, just north of New York City, was the center of much controversy regarding coyotes in 2010 when, in the suburb of Rye Brook, a coyote, which later tested positive for rabies, attacked two children and their father in the driveway of their home (Helhoski 2010). Where such attacks have been studied, there is a correlation between high percentages of anthropogenic food sources— such as dog food, trash, and domestic cats—in coyote diets, and there is often evidence that coyotes have been fed deliberately (Timm et al. 2004, Gerht 2009). Most researchers agree that attacks on humans are likely to increase unless humans begin to change their behaviors (Timm et al. 2004, Gompper 2002, Shivik and Fagerstone 2007). This might mean removing all exterior food sources such as trash, bird feeders, free-roaming cats, or tethered dogs. Living in harmony with coyotes means accepting wild animals in one’s own backyard—and taking wise precautions to avoid any contact. This last point cannot be overstated. Coyotes have successfully moved into the Northeast and have done so with relatively minimal fanfare, hence their success. Resident coyotes near the Westchester border remain wild and not habituated to humans, albeit confined to park oases of the urban jungle. But as coyotes expand to new areas and as juveniles disperse and crisscross cities like New York with increased frequency, public response will determine the animal’s fate. How wild do we want our cities? How urban is too urban for a coyote?

Areas for Further Research

There is still much that is unknown about coyote ecology in human-dominated landscapes. The story of coyotes in New York City is one that raises questions not only about the relationship between wildlife and humans, but also important biologi© The Wildlife Society

cal and behavioral issues. For example, how do natural and man-made corridors facilitate the movement of coyotes in urbanized areas? In what ways are social group size and home ranges influenced by the spatial arrangements of natural resource patches in urbanized areas, and how does this impact behavior between and among social groups? Perhaps most important, what role should wildlife managers play in all of this? Aside from the isolated cases of actual coyote attacks, a common complaint by citizens in the suburban counties surrounding New York City is simply, “There is a coyote in my backyard!” This reflects lack of information about the arrival of these animals to the area and what that might mean. However, where residents have become accustomed to the presence of coyotes, public perceptions are increasingly positive, as coyotes are seen to be not as threatening as imagined and to be fulfilling their niche in the nature of the region (Wieczorek Hudenko et al. 2008). Appreciating coyotes does not mean feeding them. As goes the adage, “A fed coyote is a dead coyote.” Ultimately what is needed is a balance of respect for the natural world and sensible caution towards the inherent wildness of undomesticated animals. A smart first step for natural resource managers is basic public education. As New York City is one of the last areas in the country to have to deal with a ‘coyote problem,’ there already exists a wealth of information regarding proper human behavior around coyotes to maintain a positive and safe coexistence with them. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation has developed a statewide standard coyote incident report form (Berchielli 2007), and our team of researchers soon expects to launch a citizen-science generated online map for the reporting of coyote sightings. People with an appreciation of nature and an awareness of the natural world may come to see the presence of coyotes in an urban landscape as a positive sign. Long perceived as a symbol of the Wild West, the coyote serves as a testimony to the ability of the natural world to adapt to sometimes radical changes in landscapes and attitudes. On another level, the success of coyotes amongst the hustle and bustle of New York City symbolizes the ability of humans and nature to co-exist, which bodes well for the future of an urbanizing planet. After all, as everybody knows about New York, “If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.” © The Wildlife Society

www.wildlife.org

Danger All in a Day’s Work The Inherent Risks of the Wildlife Profession By Madeleine Thomas

n January 8, 2010, George Pauley and Craig White—both research biologists for Idaho Fish and Game—were flying above Idaho’s Clearwater River region in a Hughes 500 helicopter during a project that involved trapping and radio-collaring elk, moose, and wolves for study. Everything was going according to plan until a bearing in the helicopter’s turbine engine compressor failed. At 800 feet above ground, the helicopter suddenly went into complete engine failure. For Pauley, the scene was sickeningly familiar: He had survived a helicopter crash in 1997, also while conducting aerial surveys for Idaho Fish and Game. Their pilot, Rick Swisher, was experienced enough to know how to maneuver the chopper into a relatively slow gliding descent. However, he faced another daunting challenge when he realized he wouldn’t reach the open area where he had hoped to land. Suddenly, “RPMs eroded sufficiently that we lost lift and the helicopter dropped in a freefall

of about 30 feet,” Pauley says. Thinking fast, Swisher veered toward a frozen creek on the North Fork of the Clearwater River. Though the landing was rough, no one on board sustained any lifethreatening injuries. Other wildlife professionals in 2010 were not as fortunate. Just a few weeks after the incident in Idaho, three California Department of Fish and Game biologists—Clu Cotter, Kevin O’Connor, and Tom Stolberg—along with their pilot, Dennis “Mike” Donovan, died when their Bell 206 helicopter clipped an electrical transmission line during a deer survey and crashed into Sierra National Forest in Madera County, California. Cotter and O’Connor were both active members of The Wildlife Society’s Western Section. Tragedy struck Idaho Fish and Game once again in August 2010 when a helicopter mechanical malfunction took the lives of a pilot and two fisheries biologists, Larry Barrett and Dani Schiff, during a count of salmon redds on the Selway River in Kamiah, Idaho. Subsequent aerial accidents in Florida, Montana, and Oregon have also claimed the lives of several wildlife professionals and pilots.

Work Fraught with Risks

Flying is the worst of many potential dangers that put wildlifers at risk. A comprehensive study of jobrelated mortalities of wildlife workers between 1937 and 2000 found that “aviation accidents accounted for 66 percent of all biologist mortalities,” making flying the “riskiest activity in the wildlife profession” (Sasse 2003). Of those deaths, 27 percent occurred in Alaska. According to the study, “Flight in Alaska is especially dangerous, with a death rate among pilots about 91 times the rate for all United States workers and five times that of other pilots.”

Credit: Idaho Fish and Game

One of three passengers injured during an aerial survey for Idaho Fish and Game in January 2010 awaits evacuation to a hospital Missoula, Montana. Thankfully, nobody on board the aircraft suffered any life-threatening injuries.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Power-line collisions, downdrafts, and mechanical failures are the most common causes of airplane and helicopter accidents. And because most aerial surveys for wildlife management purposes employ frequent turns and occur at slower speeds to

increase visibility and the chances of locating radiotagged wildlife, the risks of stalling during flights are elevated (Sasse 2003). Indeed, aerodynamic stalls—when a plane turns too quickly for the speed at which is it flying and loses lift—accounted for more than half of the accidents reported.

in illegal possession of a firearm and did not want to go back to jail. Johnson is now awaiting trial, accused of several crimes including first-degree murder for intentionally killing a law enforcement officer in the line of duty. He may face the death penalty if convicted.

Failure to safely handle equipment or insufficient knowledge about potentially hazardous equipment—such as electroshock fishing gear, chainsaws, ATVs, traps, dart guns, and the like—also increases risk (Mitchell and Richardson 2011). Such hazards are more frequent in agencies such as the National Park Service (NPS) that must rely on interns, seasonal, and short-term hires, many of whom may not have time to receive adequate training and experience with potentially hazardous equipment. In fact, NPS has the highest rates of accidents and fatalities within the Department of the Interior, reporting the deaths of nearly 60 park rangers and employees within the past 25 years. In addition, between 2001 and 2006, the combined medical and worker compensation costs for the NPS totaled $120 million dollars (NPS Operational Leadership Program).

Since Grove’s death, the Pennsylvania Game Commission has been tracking WCO contacts in the field with convicted felons, and the numbers are higher than originally anticipated, averaging over 50 known encounters annually. The occupational hazards for WCOs are therefore similar to, and

Whether working for state or federal agencies, private firms, or nonprofit organizations, wildlife professionals also face the risk of public violence. State wildlife conservation officers (WCOs) and national park rangers on patrol—particularly during night shifts in remote areas—may encounter violence related to drug and alcohol abuse, or criminal activity such as poaching or drug trafficking. On November 11, 2010, for example, David L. Grove, a WCO for the Pennsylvania Game Commission, was killed in the line of duty while investigating reports of possible nighttime poaching activity in the state’s Freedom Township. His death marked the first time since 1915 that a Pennsylvania Game Commission officer was feloniously killed in the line of duty. Grove was a seasoned WCO accustomed to the risks of night patrols and the telltale signs of poaching like spotlighting (Grove 2010). On the night of November 11, he pulled over two suspected deer poachers during a solo night patrol. As he attempted to handcuff one of the men, the suspect pulled a gun and shot Grove four times, the last round killing him with a fatal shot in the neck. After his arrest, the alleged killer, Christopher Lynn Johnson, was found to be a convicted felon. He later admitted that he shot Grove because he was

Credit: LaVonda Walton /USFWS

sometimes worse than, those faced by traditional law enforcement officers. This is because WCOs tend to work without readily available backup in remote areas where firearms (for legitimate hunting) go with the territory. “One of the most significant dangers presented to WCOs is that they’re dealing with people who have firearms, and on the surface they have them as a lawful possession and as a lawful use,” says Richard Palmer, Director of the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s Bureau of Wildlife Protection. “If there is no evidence of a crime upon initial contact, you have no reason to check if they’re a convicted felon or not.”

Sadly, names are added each year to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C., which honors federal, state, and local law enforcement officers— including FWS special agents and refuge officers—who lose their lives in the line of duty.

When possible, Palmer advises WCOs to perform a thorough pre-contact assessment of any suspects they come across in the field, including a background check, when warranted, to learn of any prior arrests and whether the suspect is licensed to

www.wildlife.org

carry a gun. If an officer cannot complete a precontact assessment, Palmer says that working with a partner whenever possible greatly improves officer safety. He also urges officers to be aware of their surroundings in the field, to spot potential cover and escape routes should danger arise, and to note a suspect’s body language before approach.

The Dangers of Disease

Disease transmission is also an increasing risk for wildlife professionals across the country as awareness grows about the costs and liabilities associated with illness, including loss of workdays and lingering injury from disease exposure. Such hazards have not always been a focus of wildlife management, however. “Up until 15 to 20 years ago, there wasn’t a lot of concern,” says Scott Hygnstrom, professor and extension wildlife damage specialist at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln and immediate past chair of TWS’ Wildlife Diseases Working Group. “But then came Lyme disease in the mid-‘70s, hantavirus and West Nile in the ‘90s, and recently avian influenza.” Now, he says, “we’re all very much aware.” There are approximately 1,400 species of infectious organisms that are pathogenic to people, and of those, at least 61 percent are zoonotic (Taylor et. al 2001). Apart from global warming, anthropogenic land alteration such as agricultural development,

Credit: Tyrone Donnelly/USFWS

wetland modification, expanding urban centers, and deforestation also contribute to increased rates of infectious disease outbreaks and emergence events, and modify the transmission routes of various endemic infections. In the northeastern United States, for example, forest fragmentation paired with urban sprawl and biodiversity loss has led to increased risks of Lyme disease (Patz et al. 2004). Rabies is another zoonotic disease that has become more of a risk in urban settings as known rabies vector species like bats, skunks, and raccoons have become more commonplace in major metropolitan areas (Patz et al. 2004). “Culturally, as a profession, we’re not particularly risk averse,” says Richard Chipman, Assistant Coordinator of the National Rabies Management Program for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s APHIS Wildlife Services. “As a result, we may get a bit cavalier when it comes to wildlife diseases. I can think of many times while working on small mammal projects, baiting traps with peanut butter and then using that peanut butter to make sandwiches.” Not every biologist uses the same jar of peanut butter for baiting and sandwich-making, but there are several simple precautions to take in the field that can reduce the risk of disease transmission, including: • Frequent hand-washing, as well as removing clothes and shoes to avoid spreading contact with

Credit: Phil Douglass/Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Risks From Wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists (left) prepare to survey birds for avian influenza at Alaska’s Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. A highly pathogenic subtype of the virus, H5N1, first infected humans during a 1997 poultry outbreak in Hong Kong, and can be spread through direct or indirect contact with infected birds. Agitated animals can also cause harm. Biologists with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (right) carry an energetic young bighorn sheep involved in a translocation. During capture, handling, and translocation, animals may exhibit higher levels of stress, putting wildlifers at risk of injury.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

any blood, feces, saliva, urine or disease-carrying bodily fluids that can be tracked on clothing. • Using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) like gloves, coveralls, safety glasses, and masks, as well as proper fittings for respirators to avoid inhalation of fungal spores for those working in high-risk areas with contaminated soil or animal feces, such as caves containing bat colonies or near bird roosts. • Contingency planning to deal with accidental exposure to any pharmaceuticals, anesthetics, or reagents, particularly for professionals involved with chemical immobilization or euthanasia. • Working in uncontaminated areas even for minor procedures like leg-banding, tagging, microchipping and sampling for hair, feathers, scales, or blood. • Using clean equipment including cages, traps, holding areas, crates, bags, and containers, all of which should be thoroughly disinfected after use.

A Tragic Cautionary Tale

“Assuming that just because you’ve done it 100 times and nothing has happened doesn’t mean that it won’t happen,” says David A. Jessup, Executive Manager of the Wildlife Disease Association. “I know biologists who handle hundreds of dead animals without gloves and nothing has happened, but you only make a mistake like that once.” Tragically, that proved true for Eric York, a National Park Service wildlife biologist who, in 2007, died of disease contracted while studying carnivore movement patterns in Grand Canyon National Park. Upon discovering the carcass of one of the mountain lions he had collared as part of his study, York performed a postmortem examination, not realizing that the body was infected with pneumonic plague. He died just a few days later. Upon discovering pneumonic plague in the necropsied lion, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that York had contracted the disease from the animal. To avoid exposure to virulent disease, wildlife professionals should resist the instinct to simply “open the hood” of a dead animal before taking the risks of disease transmission into account, says Hygnstrom. In addition, wildlife professionals working in direct contact with animals should carry a Medical Alert Card. “Most doctors in their entire lifetimes are never going to see a case of tularemia or a case of plague,” says Jessup. “So it’s a good

Credit: Todd Harless/USFWS

idea to notify your doctor that you have kind of an unusual job that means you are at a higher risk for diseases than the rest of the population and to diseases that most doctors have only read about in medical school.” A Medical Alert Card notifies doctors of a wildlife professional’s close and frequent contact with wildlife, and of the need to check for potential exposure to what many doctors consider exotic diseases.

Low-level flight— used during radiotelemetry work and wildlife surveys, including waterfowl surveys (pictured)— may be hazardous as power lines and other obstructions are difficult to spot at such altitudes.

“Many of these diseases are difficult to diagnose for physicians because many elicit flu-like symptoms,” Hygnstrom says. “So a physician might unknowingly suggest bed rest when a disease is actually in play.” Those with compromised immune systems or medications that can alter immune response should be especially cautious, as infectious diseases are more prone to manifest in compromised immune systems. And pregnant women should be particularly vigilant, as some wildlife-related diseases like toxoplasmosis can have a direct effect on unborn children. “Risk is all part of the job,” says Chipman. “We’re riding in planes and on ATVs, dealing with pesticides, firearms, euthanasia, and immobilizing drugs.” Some wildlife professionals—particularly those involved in controversial issues such as lethal control of over-abundant or invasive species—even report receiving death threats during public meetings. Given such potential hazards, the public is fortunate to have dedicated professionals willing to put their lives on the line to preserve and protect wildlife and the public they may encounter.

Madeleine Thomas is the Editorial Intern for The Wildlife Society.

www.wildlife.org

Of Bears, Chess, and Checkers Moving Away from Pure Science to Solve Problems By Michael L. Gibeau

W Credit: Emilie Gibeau

Michael L. Gibeau, Ph.D, recently retired after 33 years with Parks Canada, where he served as a Park Warden, Conservation Biologist, and finally the Carnivore Specialist for the Mountain National Parks.

ildlife biologists who promote conservation tend to share a certain frame of reference. Most of us got into the wildlife business because of our love of nature and animals. That’s what led me to my long career of working with grizzly bears in Canada’s Banff National Park. But something changed during my career that has fundamentally rearranged the way I think—not just about biology, or bears, but about almost everything I do in my life. I’ve come to understand a more comprehensive way to solve problems. By sharing it, I hope to provide an alternative to the way fellow biologists approach problem solving.

Throughout my formal education, I was steeped in the epistemology of wildlife biology. I viewed the world through the lens of science, where scientific management was the primary solution to problems. This bounded rationality is typical for many of us. I spent most of my career radio collaring and studying various carnivores, a classic “collar and foller” kind of guy, who collected data, wrote reports, and published papers. I don’t do that anymore. I’ve come to understand that science, while necessary, is not sufficient to solve problems in the real world. When faced with a tough problem, most biologists will simply collect more data, a natural reaction for those who believe that science ultimately holds all the answers. But more study doesn’t address the fundamental problem. I see it as merely playing checkers when a situation calls for playing chess—a much more complex and strategic game.

Learning in the Trenches

To explain what I mean, I’ll rewind the clock. From roughly 1994 to 2000, my research boiled down to nothing more than collecting interesting information about grizzly bears. Through radio telemetry monitoring we documented low levels of security and high movement rates. In sum, our research suggested that high levels of human use in Banff National Park were having a negative impact on the grizzly bear population.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Such information can help inform debate and management decisions, but it’s still just information. Although I was doing solid science and had published many papers in peer-reviewed journals, I was receiving significant criticism from a small but influential segment of the public. For example, stakeholders with development interests were becoming concerned that research like mine would cause Parks Canada to introduce measures to protect Banff’s small population of bears by restricting development and tourism opportunities. Beginning around 2000, a debate erupted in the popular media that spanned several years, questioning not only the science but openly attempting to discredit me as a scientist. The debate centered on determining appropriate levels of human use and the age-old question of preservation vs. development in our national parks. Grizzly bears were the lightning rod that sparked the debate. Some of the headlines from our national newspapers read: “Parks failing to protect grizzlies,” “Scientists deny grizzly study an attempt to create false crisis,” and “Highway statistics and bear research questioned.” Some Parks Canada officials began wondering whether to believe me or the headlines. I asked myself, “What was I doing wrong?” Wasn’t it enough to get the science right? Apparently not. I came to realize that I was conducting science in a totally a-contextual way. Like many typical wildlife biologists, I was unaware of the larger social debate and political pressures at play. I was also unaware of how far special interests would go to use—or skew—scientific research to justify their own ends.

Smarter Chess Moves

The controversy surrounding grizzly bears and bear management a decade ago in Banff was unsettling enough that I began searching for an alternative way for scientists to interact with people instead of just spotlighting published papers. I wanted to do something different than simply bombard the public with information. The answer is to actually work with people, illustrated

by a continuum that ranges from simply providing information to total collaboration (see chart). Most governments try to inform or influence people by holding open meetings and issuing media releases and brochures. That typically passes for “consultation” in government circles. However, the object is often simply to “check the box” of public engagement before moving on to implement a pre-determined plan. I wanted to move to a more participatory form of engagement and to actually collaborate with stakeholders in a meaningful way. Fortunately, I had been exposed to a methodology that would help me do just that. In the early 2000s, with the blessings of Parks Canada in Banff, managers who were fed up with controversy began to pursue a new policy-science framework that allows a more comprehensive approach to problem solving (Clark 2001, Wallace and Clark 2002). Notably, this framework was widely known in law, international relations, and public health, but barely recognized in the arena of resource management. As described in “The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resource Professionals” (Clark 2002), this framework provides a fully contextual approach to problem solving and enables civil dialogue about the real problems. With this book as our guide, we brought together a diverse group of people in Banff including biologists, government officials, advocacy groups for business and conservation interests, and various user groups. Everyone wanted to try a new style of interaction that avoided the stale government consultation process that did nothing more than provide information, collect a range of opinions, and then make decisions behind closed doors. Central to the policy sciences’ interdisciplinary framework is an understanding of eight core values (Lasswell 1971) that motivate human actions. They are: Power: Decision-making authority and access to goods and services. Enlightenment: The finding and spreading of information and knowledge. Wealth: Control of resources such as money, natural resources, and people. Well-being: Opportunity for personal safety, health, and comfort. Skill: Opportunity to develop inherent talents including professional, vocational, and artistic skills. Affection: Friendship, loyalty, love, and intimacy in interpersonal situations.

Respect: Recognition or deference in one’s professional or community life. Rectitude: Responsible and ethical conduct. People’s actions can be explained by seeking more or being deprived of any of these core values. I therefore started asking the question: “What is that person being deprived of or seeking more of?” As my understanding of the eight base values broadened, it became evident there are two values of particular importance in all human interactions. The first is power—something that governments tend to sequester and maintain—and the other is respect, as withholding or being deprived of respect is an alltoo-common occurrence in interpersonal relations. Our newly formed problem-solving group in Banff began by acknowledging and trying to understand one another’s values and perspectives. Group momentum built as decisions such as seasonal access restrictions or sustainable mortality targets were agreed upon and implemented by the government. For example, prior to the formation of this group, any type of restriction of human access to specific areas for conservation reasons was portrayed by user groups as the government’s

A Continuum for Working with Others

Inform

Influence

Involve

Collaborate

Purpose

Provide information to raise awareness

Exchange information to foster knowledge & understanding

Explore ways to build support & commitment

Strive for consensus

Relationship

One-way

Two-way

Active

Adaptive

Decision Making

Decisions made by authority

Some advice and feedback go both ways, but decisions made with minimal input

Decisions made after several opportunities to provide substantive input

Decisions based on consensusbased recommendations

Outcome

Public is informed, thus better able to participate

Information informs the agency about the public’s views

Decisions reflect concerns and ideas; feedback is provided about how public input influenced decisions

Ownership of outcomes is shared

Capacities

Capacities increase from left to right for information processing and learning, for drawing out values, for problem solving, and for resolving conflict. Credit: Adapted from Edwards 2005

www.wildlife.org

The “Problem” is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

Ordinary or technical problems

The grizzly bears

Governance or political problems

Trust and relationships

Constitutive or cultural problems

Mandated power of agency as the land manager

Credit: Susan G. Clark

Grizzly bear research in Canadian parks was the visible (i.e., “ordinary or technical”) problem during Gibeau’s research. But the real problems lay below the surface. Some involved political pressures and mistrust between land agency managers and other participants. Deeper still were complex issues regarding how Parks Canada chose to wield its constitutive power.

attempt to close the park down to the public. Through this new joint problem-solving and shared decisionmaking approach, everyone not only agreed to seasonal access restrictions in several areas, but promoted the changes as the best solution for everyone. Within the first two years, and as the issues became more complex, we came to ask the question: “What is the real problem here?” Grizzly bears were the obvious superficial issue, but more deep-seated was the problem of trust and relationships. Years of animosity among groups over philosophical differences in park management and a general mistrust of the Parks Canada leadership had created a caustic atmosphere. Even more hidden from view and rarely discussed was the process of decision making mandated by our government. The mandated power of the agencies to make all decisions themselves is perceived as a real problem for many people. However, our group was different. Parks Canada (the agency) was sharing power, and our group was making joint decisions. Group cohesion tightened as participants came to understand other perspectives. Many of the long-standing issues arising out of years of mistrust seemed to fade as the science surrounding grizzly bears was dissected and digested. As a result, controversy over grizzly bears in Banff National Park largely faded away.

A Mixed Legacy

I wish I could just end the story here, heralding the merits of participatory decision making, but that is not how it eventually ended. In 2009 our

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

group collapsed. While in the midst of a contentious issue surrounding access restrictions along one of the secondary highways, the superintendent of Banff National Park retired. She had been very supportive of our collaborative efforts. However, her successor did not share the same philosophy of joint decision making, so the agency again assumed all decision making authority. Trust within our group eroded, and participants reverted to using the media and political lobbying to make their points. We went from civil dialogue about common interests to the old model of stakeholders promoting their own special interests to the all-powerful government. Grizzly bears once again symbolized arguments about issues of preservation versus development, trust and relationships, and ultimately about who had the power to decide (Rutherford and Clark 2005). For a brief period of our history in Banff, a broad cross-section of citizens had a taste of interdisciplinary problem solving and group decision making. We had civil and open dialogue on a level playing field and government-approved sharing of power—a successful formula that allowed us to build trust and foster relationships. Through this approach we enjoyed productive discourse about grizzly bears and made some conservation gains. Participants found this a more comprehensive approach to issues and understood that the real problem involves social interactions and how decisions are made (Richie and Oppenheimer 2011, Oppenheimer and Richie 2011). Ultimately, we learned that you can get the science right and still not get a sound decision because special interests override the common interest. Sadly, today, we are once again bogged down in the acrimony and the same controversy we faced 10 years ago. So I challenge you all to step outside your thinking box. Is science the central element of your problem solving strategy? Are you playing checkers while everybody else is playing chess? The time has come for all biologists to recognize that while science is necessary, it is not sufficient to solve today’s problems. We need to shift our attention away from just the biological elements and put people, not science, at the center of problem solving. We need to learn more comprehensive ways to approach problem solving that are fully contextual. And finally, biologists need to lead the way in applying these new skills in an increasingly complex world. The vast majority of the public are ready, but the question remains, are we?

national

conservation

leadership

institute

become pArt of the

extrAordinAry Fellowship applications accepted through April 30, 2012

www.conservationleadership.org

EDUCATION

Averting the Third Environmental Crisis Engaging Youth with the Ideals of Theodore Roosevelt By Bill Jensen

D Credit: North Dakota Game and Fish Department

Bill Jensen, Ph.D., is a Big Game Biologist with the North Dakota Game and Fish Department.

uring the 2011 Plenary Session of The Wildlife Society’s Annual Conference in Hawaii, then TWS President Tom Ryder described the history of wildlife management in North America as falling into three periods of crisis. The first was the wholesale exploitation of wildlife in the late 1800s, the second revolved around habitat destruction in the 1930s, and the third crisis involves the current lack of political will to take collaborative action.

Following Tom’s remarks, a diverse group of speakers addressed that concern including Michael Hutchins (Executive Director of TWS), Simon Roosevelt (businessman and Boone and Crockett Club member), David Johns (Treasurer of The Society of Conservation Biology), and Catherine Semcer (Senior Representative of the Sierra Club in Washington, D.C.). They all touched on central themes such as the need to educate the next generation about environmental issues, the need to form partnerships, and the need to have clearly defined goals and objectives. Canadian conservationist Shane Mahoney then charged us to remember that “conservation is an achievement—not something nice to view, but something we need to do.” Despite our diverse backgrounds, TWS members share the belief that conservation is not merely nice but necessary. Yet I think too often we as wildlife biologists address conservation as a private matter. We discuss the topic among like-minded adults in the privacy of our work places, professional meetings, or workshops, often preaching to a choir of the already converted.

To read some of the 2011 conference plenary speeches, go to wildlife.org/ twplogin.

What can we do about it? I have a suggestion. In 2008, on Theodore Roosevelt’s 150th birthday, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department began offering a conservation award called the TR Award. It focuses on five primary attributes that TR embodied: development of mind and body, citizenship, the ability to live in the wilderness, environmental education, and developing skills for hunting and fishing. The goals of our program were

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

simple: Provide a framework to educate youth in the ethics and values of conservation, promote the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and provide young people with skill sets needed to enjoy an active outdoor life. The mechanism for achieving these goals was equally simple: Develop coalitions that would carry this message to as many young people as possible. Obvious partners for those coalitions were with Boy Scouts of America (BSA), Girl Scouts of the USA, and 4H Clubs—organizations that began training youth to enjoy outdoor life long before TWS existed. In North Dakota, youth from all three groups have received the TR Award. As a result of this program, dozens of North Dakota youth now have all the skills they need to enjoy a safe and active life in the outdoors. Hoping to expand a version of this program nationwide, The Wildlife Society formed an ad hoc committee of 10 members who are working to develop a national program called “Roosevelt Days.” It’s being developed in partnership with BSA to reach the 4.5 million youth currently in scouting. To achieve success, we need Society members to serve as counselors and help develop partnerships with other environmental and scientific NGOs. Eventually we hope to expand the effort to include Girl Scouts and 4H. Will this collective effort make a difference in changing public policy and promoting wildlife conservation? I don’t know. But I find encouragement in Boy Scout administrator Forest Witcraft’s essay, Within My Power, in which he wrote: “A hundred years from now it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove, but the world may be different because I was important in the life of a child.” Become a part of this new program by emailing me at bjensen@nd.gov. By participating, you will make a positive difference in the life of a child and in the future health of our natural resources.

Call for Retraction Bird Banding Opinion Piece Raises Objections By Ellen Paul, John Alexander, Susan Finnegan, Alexander L. Bond, Jeffrey A. Stratford, and Scott Weidensaul

W Credit: Timothy Boucher

Ellen Paul is Executive Director of the Ornithological Council.

e request retraction of the Point-Counterpoint article by Marlene Condon titled “Is It Time to Halt Bird Banding?” that ran in the fall 2011 issue of The Wildlife Professional (Condon 2011). Though the magazine is not peer-reviewed per se, publication by the highly regarded Wildlife Society implies that a peer-review process is in place. Further, the magazine’s contributor guidelines state that articles “are usually sent to outside experts for review to ensure completeness and accuracy of information” and that they contain “sound, verified information and wellsupported arguments.”

The Condon article, which condemns one of the most common and important research techniques used by ornithologists and wildlife biologists, does not meet those standards. However, it will likely be cited as though it had been published in a peerreviewed scientific journal by opponents of research involving live animals. The research community should listen to its critics, but those critics should be knowledgeable and experienced, and base their criticisms on fact, not on emotion and the faulty or selective citation of literature. Condon’s statements on the BirdBand listserve make it clear that she lacks training or experience in bird banding or in any relevant scientific discipline that would qualify her to comment on the impact of banding on birds. Instead, it appears that emotion motivated Condon, as revealed by her

Co-author Affiliations John Alexander, Ph.D chairs the North American Banding Council. Susan Finnegan manages the Wing Island Banding Station at the Cape Cod Museum of Natural History. Alexander L. Bond, Ph.D is a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Saskatchewan. Jeffrey A. Stratford, Ph.D is an Assistant Professor of Biology at Wilkes University. Scott Weidensaul is at the Ned Smith Center for Nature and Art in Millersburg, Pennsylvania.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

listserve comment after publication of the article: “I did visit a banding station once,” she wrote, “but when I saw the intense fear in the eyes of the birds being handled, I had to leave.” We do not hold the editors responsible for foreseeing what Condon would later reveal, but we do assert that professional editorial standards dictate that an author’s knowledge or expertise and the evidence underlying his or her argument—especially in a controversial opinion piece—be investigated before the piece is accepted for publication.

Flawed Arguments

Condon’s piece is characterized by hyperbole and a lack of scientific rigor. She cited a 1999 article in Birder’s World (an unreviewed popular publication) as saying that biologists routinely discover thousands of dead birds that have washed ashore. The statement is greatly exaggerated. She then suggested that a band weighing 0.005 grams on a bird with a migration-onset weight of about 6 grams (Robinson et al. 1996) could be a danger if the birds encounter headwinds. That conclusion is unwarranted. A review of Condon’s article would have revealed that she relied on greatly simplified popular accounts unsuitable for drawing broad inferences, much less for urging changes that would have strong ramifications on scientific research. In fact, a 1994 paper, which reported the finding of 40,000 dead birds in Louisiana following a tornado and a storm, actually suggests how uncommon such major mortality events are, even following severe storms—much less following the more common shifting of winds (Wiedenfeld and Wiedenfeld 1994). Birds migrating over the Gulf usually have enough reserves to continue inland for several hundred miles in good conditions (Lowery 1945). If conditions are so severe that birds are unable to make it to or past the coast, it isn’t the added weight of the band that will do them in, but the severity of the weather. Condon uses the relatively low “recovery” rate of banded birds to argue against banding’s efficacy.

Her argument, citing an unreviewed Birder’s World article (Kerlinger 2005), actually refers to the encounter rate (any report of a band subsequent to the initial banding), which is 6.3 percent across all taxa but as high as 42 percent for some hunted taxa. More important, Bruce Peterjohn, chief of the bird banding laboratory at the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, points out in his counterpoint to Condon (Peterjohn 2011) that encounters are not the only goal of banding. The return rate of banded birds encountered on or near their breeding or wintering grounds is significantly higher and more meaningful for most purposes than are the overall encounter rates. For example, one study of Kentucky warblers (Geothlypis formosus)—a species that migrates across the Gulf of Mexico—reported a 35 percent recapture rate over two years of birds that had been banded in the previous two years (Kricher 1986). Until recently, it was impossible to compare the fate of banded and unbanded birds, so it is impossible to know if their survival rates differ. New technologies using radio frequency identification chips or analyzing DNA now allow us to identify unmarked individuals. Although technological and financial restraints limit their use for many species and many situations (Bonter and Bridge 2011), we may, in some cases, be able to compare the longevity of banded birds versus unbanded birds. The Condon article selectively cited studies reporting injuries on a range of bird marking methods. It pointed to popular accounts of a paper on penguin tags (Saraux 2011), but neglected to mention that famed penguin biologist Dee Boersma has been putting flipper tags on penguins for 30 years. Upon finding that aluminum tags were harming the birds, Boersma switched to stainless steel bands that had no effect on the birds’ survival, reproduction, or behavior (Boersma and Renstock 2009, Petersen et al. 2005). The Condon commentary also quoted from a paper saying that house sparrows “may lose an average of 4.2 percent of their body mass, and possibly as much as 7.4 percent” (Refsnider 1993), a reference implying that this loss occurred during the routine banding process. However, the paper clearly states that mass loss occurred over a period of two hours in captivity, not “during the banding process,” which typically is much shorter.

Researchers have shown a consistent concern for the welfare of their study subjects. Condon herself cited a report (Henckel 1976) of leg lesions on banded turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), and noted that, as a result of this study, the U.S. Bird Banding Lab prohibited the use of leg bands on these birds. She also cited a paper (Hatch and Nisbet 1983) about corrosion of bands from wear and exposure to salt water, but did not state that for this reason, banders switched to stainless steel or incoloy bands.

A Well-Regulated Practice

Banders and ornithologists, in cooperation with the U.S. Bird Banding Lab and the Canadian Bird Banding Office, continually identify and minimize the impacts of capture and marking, as seen in their publications on ethics and best practices. The North American Banding Council publishes a series of banding manuals and offers training and certification, and the Ornithological Council publishes Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research, a peer-reviewed publication recognized as a reference standard in wildlife research. In fact, banding requires federal and state permits, which signify that an impact from a banding activity is acceptable. Banding is also monitored through the research protocol review process mandated by laws in the United States and Canada. If research on wild animals is to end because the methods might have impacts on the subjects, our ability to study and understand wildlife would be severely curtailed. Even mere observation can affect wildlife, as the presence of a researcher is not always well-tolerated. The Wildlife Society itself states in its position statement on animal rights that “animals can be studied and managed through science-based methods ... provided the practice is sustainable and individual animals are treated ethically and humanely.” All research methods warrant discussion, but that discussion must be well-supported by science. Because the Condon article does not meet that standard, we urge the editors to retract it. Editor’s note: Paul et al. raise some excellent points that we will discuss with our Editorial Advisory Board, particularly regarding author credentials, citations from the “popular” press, and review procedures. Though we are not inclined to retract an opinion piece, we will strive to ensure that all TWP articles have a sound scientific base.

www.wildlife.org

The Wildlife Society

policy watch

The Role of Policy in Fighting Disease By Charlotte Weaver

Credit: TWS

Charlotte Weaver was Policy Intern at The Wildlife Society from July to December 2011.

n February of 2011, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced Senate bill 357, the Wildlife Disease Emergency Act of 2011. Prompted by the emergence of white-nose syndrome (WNS) in bats in New Jersey in 2009, the act—which is still in committee—would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to identify and declare wildlife disease emergencies, establish a fund to coordinate rapid responses to those emergencies, and address harmful wildlife diseases with actions coordinated among federal, state, tribal, and local agencies and nongovernmental organizations. The power to declare an emergency would help clear the way for appropriate funding and rapid action. Lautenberg’s bill is just one of many signs that policymakers are beginning to take the issue of wildlife diseases—and the threats they pose to wildlife, livestock, ecosystems, and human health—very seriously. “We must ensure that the Fish and Wildlife Service and environmental scientists have every tool available to them as they fight devastating wildlife diseases like white-nose syndrome,” Lautenberg said. Even in this down economy, lawmakers have put some money toward the cause. The conference report for the most recent appropriations bill passed by Congress in late 2011 directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to “fund white-nose syndrome research and response activities at no less than $4,000,000.” The report also directs the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service to prioritize research related to WNS in bats and the inventory and monitoring of bat resources on bureau- and service-administered lands, respectively. In another effort to address concerns about the nation’s ability to combat wildlife diseases, Representative Alcee Hastings (D-FL) introduced the Wildlife Veterinarians Employment and Training Act (Wildlife VET Act, H.R. 3886). The bill, supported by The Wildlife Society, aims to expand the workforce of veterinarians specialized in the care and conservation of wild animals and their ecosystems by addressing challenges such as the high cost of education, low pay, and limited job opportunities that create a shortage of wildlife veterinarians.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

That shortage is acute, as many state and federal agencies are unable to address routine veterinary functions and pandemics simultaneously. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the FWS, for example, has only four veterinarians on its staff, far too few to effectively monitor diseases in wildlife.

Agencies Take Action

Many wildlife disease surveillance and monitoring centers —such as those at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—have been formed to link and track wildlife disease outbreaks across the nation and the world. The USGS National Wildlife Health Center, for example, provides a database of wildlife disease occurrences for many diseases, including WNS, avian influenza, and sylvatic plague. Monitoring combines disease data in one location to identify spreading trends and areas in need of precautionary measures. One way to leverage such efforts is to foster collaboration and communication between USGS and USDA so that information and ideas are not stove-piped but shared among all relevant organizations. Networks to share information regarding disease outbreaks and data help unite the effort to observe and respond proactively to emergent diseases. The Wildlife Society is also actively involved in the issue of wildlife disease. Its Wildlife Diseases Working Group, for example, serves to increase awareness and understanding of wildlife diseases and works to improve and pass wildlife disease legislation. The Society itself is also drafting a formal position on wildlife diseases, which should be formalized later this year. Currently there is no national policy or office dedicated to effectively coordinating wildlife disease response throughout local, state, tribal, and federal governments. There should be: Emerging wildlife disease is an increasing threat to maintaining sustainable fish and wildlife populations and healthy ecosystem functions that support us—providing clean water, pollination, seed dispersal, healthy game, and a valuable sanctuary to escape the stress of everyday life.

ALDO LEOPOLD AWARD SPEECH 2011

Aldo Leopold and Me Reflections on Our Common Experience By Douglas H. Johnson

eceiving the Aldo Leopold Award was an incredible honor for me, a statistician who fell in love with birds and the natural world. I knew of Leopold mostly from reading A Sand County Almanac multiple times. Receiving an award named after him motivated me to learn more about the man. I found that we have more in common than I had anticipated. For example:

• He wrote A Sand County Almanac. I read A Sand County Almanac. • He spent much time at his “shack,” a converted chicken coop. I have spent several hours at his shack. • Leopold was a professor at the University of Wisconsin. I was a student at the University of Wisconsin. • He founded an academic department (Wildlife Management) at the University of Wisconsin. I foundered in an academic department (Statistics) at the University of Wisconsin. • Leopold worked for a federal agency (the U.S. Forest Service). I work for a federal agency (the U.S. Geological Survey). • Leopold had an enormous impact on his agency. I work for a federal agency. The similarities continue. Leopold’s career arose from a strong interest in birds and all things natural. My career arose from an interest in birds. But Leopold was a naturalist from his youth, so his career path was obvious. Mine was not. Only as a graduate student in statistics did I suddenly perceive what had been around me, unnoticed, all my life. Leopold’s deep understanding evolved from his experiences afield, and that is my focus here. I had known that Leopold wrote Game Management, the first textbook on wildlife, published in 1933. After receiving the Leopold Award, I decided to—finally— read it. The University of Minnesota library had the book, but it was in the deep dark recesses, hidden from view, and requiring a request to a librarian to retrieve it. Not a good sign.

Reading it, I discovered even more parallels in our thinking. Leopold defined an index as any condition that can be measured and may be expected to vary in proportion to the population. “Indices are useful short-cuts,” he wrote, “but they are of no avail, and may lead to dangerous fallacies, unless the variables which affect their validity are matched out or at least recognized” (Leopold 1933:141). These days, indices are widely disparaged, but I endorse their appropriate use (Johnson 2008). I spend much of my time thinking about monitoring issues (Johnson 2012). Leopold recognized the importance of this activity by stating that “continuous census is the yardstick of success or failure in conservation” (Leopold 1933:170). Modeling seems like a relatively modern tool, or at least it was when I began my career in 1970. But Leopold recognized its value in 1933, when he exhibited a life-cycle model for northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). He even noted that such models should be used to guide further research (Leopold 1933:185). That was exactly the motivation that my now-retired colleague, Al Sargeant, and I had when we proposed developing the “Mallard Model,” which subsequently took on a life of its own as a management tool for waterfowl (Johnson et al. 1987).

Credit: Brenda A. Johnson

Douglas H. Johnson, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, a Research Statistician with its Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Adjunct Professor at the University of Minnesota, and the 2011 Winner of the Aldo Leopold Award, The Wildlife Society’s Highest Honor.

Leopold observed that a bird’s “ultimate success in raising a brood depends on the outcome of a series of repeated nesting attempts following successive previous failures” (Leopold 1933:309). Lew Cowardin, another now-retired colleague, and I made the same observation, a mere half-century later (Cowardin and Johnson 1979). Leopold, however, probably didn’t recognize the connection between that fact and the Taylor-series expansion of the exponential function, which leads to a convenient formula relating the probability that an individual nesting attempt is successful to the probability that the bird ultimately succeeds in one of the attempts (Cowardin and Johnson 1979:33).

www.wildlife.org

ALDO LEOPOLD AWARD SPEECH 2011

Throughout my career I have emphasized the commonality between game and nongame birds while also recognizing their differences, and noting that most management practices directed toward game also benefit certain nongame birds (Johnson et al. 1994). Leopold thought similarly, writing: “It is desirable that game cover plants also have value for song and insectivorous birds. Many of the hedgeforming species, as well as conifers and grapevines, are much used by bush-nesting species and by winter visitants” (Leopold 1933:315). Much is made these days about detectability, and the fact that some animals are more easily seen than others—a disparity that can generate misleading conclusions (see citations in Johnson 2008). Leopold identified the problem, noting that many animals killed by cars are noticed by numerous people, whereas animals killed in most other ways go unnoticed. From this he argued that the importance of collisions with vehicles as a cause of fatality is often overestimated (Leopold 1933:352). Leopold endorsed the value of statistics, the focus of my life’s work. “A working knowledge of the theory of statistics, and of the theory of probabilities,” wrote Leopold, “will help [a game manager] make accurate deductions from his data” (Leopold 1933:374). However, he didn’t make this comment until page 374, under a section entitled, “Game maps and range tallies.” Hmm. Better late than never, I guess.

What Would Leopold Think?

I can only conjecture, of course, about what Leopold would think of today’s conservation and social challenges, including climate change, overpopulation, pollution, over-exploitation of resources, and the rising human disconnect from nature. Yet he recognized, even in his day, that the modern world was growing increasingly distant from the natural world. As often as he could, he escaped the trappings of civilization to go to his shack, or to hunt or fish. Indeed, Leopold never lost his connection to nature, and we shouldn’t either. He would encourage all of us to enjoy what we strive to protect. Unfortunately, retaining our own connection to nature can be a challenge. “Success in research or

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

administration carries the penalty of ultimately joining the swivel-chair ‘overhead,’” wrote Leopold, adding that “a career as a field warden, keeper, or local manager, on the other hand, stays close to the soil” (Leopold 1933:415). I would emphasize getting back to the soil, particularly for the many of us whose work does not routinely take us afield. Most of us are deskbound and computer-bound. It is important for the statisticians, IT staff, GIS workers, and modelers to spend time in the field—especially modelers. Stepping away from the computer and into the real world provides a valuable reality check on the assumptions of our models. Leopold wrote that conclusions “must be constantly checked against that greatest but least-read of all books: the face of the land.” Time in the field reminds us that habitat is not just a GIS feature, but something that fills diverse needs of the creatures that live there. Go to the field with administrative folks, too, and show them just what it is we are working to protect. If they understand and appreciate the natural world, perhaps they will come to realize that completing paperwork is not the primary objective of a work group. Go to the field with someone more knowledgeable than you—someone who can read the landscape and relate its geologic history. Someone who knows the plants and can explain why this species is here and that species is over there. Someone who knows the behavior of birds and can tell you that the bird emitting a series of chip notes nearby is unhappy about your being so close to its nest. Someone who has known the area for decades and can tell you about changes that have occurred. Go to the field by yourself. Let the woods speak to you. Wander off the trail; follow a set of tracks. Listen to the birds in the distance, and speculate about why they are calling. Go to the field with kids. Your own kids, your grandkids, anybody’s kids. They are the ones from whom we are borrowing the Earth. Let them know that you care about it, and that they should as well. Leopold’s father, by example, encouraged young Aldo to spend much time outdoors. You should, too. You just might be encouraging the next Aldo Leopold.

The Wildlife Society

field notes The Power of the Bluebird In the name of organic pest control, Julie Jedlicka, ornithologist with the University of California at Berkeley, recently explored the role of western bluebirds (Sialia mexicana) in consuming insect pests in California vineyards. These and other cavity-nesting birds have a diverse palate for arthropods—including moths, grasshoppers, and beetles—and an affinity for open spaces, such as vineyards provide. “I noticed that some grassroots growers were establishing songbird nest boxes in their vineyards and that birds were nesting in those nest boxes,” Jedlicka says. “It seemed like an exciting avenue to help conserve species in working landscapes. “To determine whether the nest boxes did indeed attract more bluebirds, Jedlicka and her colleagues divided two organic vineyards in half and installed nest boxes (based on size specifications provided by the North American Bluebird Society) on one half of each vineyard, leaving the remaining area clear of boxes. Soon, researchers discovered that compared with the control area, areas with the nest boxes had twice as many birds early in the nesting season and 2.6 times as many birds later in the

breeding season. Western bluebirds were most abundant, showing a tenfold increase in the nest box areas. Once researchers had established that nest boxes were successful in increasing the abundance of western bluebirds and other insectivorous birds, they began to study the birds’ impact on the area’s insects by mimicking a pest outbreak. They pinned larvae of the beet armyworm—a common agricultural pest found in vineyards and gardens—to pieces of cardboard and placed them in the two sections of each field. Within six hours, researchers found that more than twice as many larvae were taken from areas with nest boxes than from control areas without them. Over that same six hours, 3.5 times more larvae were removed from the areas specifically below bluebird nest boxes than from the control areas. Apart from being an efficient way to attract more bluebirds and reduce pests, the nest boxes have another advantage: timing. Songbirds nest from March through July and leave several months before harvest season, so there’s no risk of the birds damaging crops. Maintenance is simple, too: Nest boxes can be left up all year, and they only need to be managed once a year. According to Jedlicka, “It’s important that old nests are cleaned out to make room for new nests once a year, and that can happen in February.” Despite these benefits, however, it’s worth noting that western bluebirds and many other insectivorous birds don’t eat all pests—spider mites, for example, are too small for several bird species—so nest boxes alone aren’t necessarily a replacement for pest control. —Based on research by Jedlicka et al. 2011

An Effort to Eliminate Rabies

Credit: Laura Barrow

Julie Jedlicka checks a nest box for active nests in a vineyard in Hopland, California. Jedlicka and her assistants found that western bluebirds occupied most vineyard nest boxes—a welcome sight for growers looking to use the insectivorous birds to control pests in their vineyards.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

In the late 1980s, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) began rabies control operations to help curb disease outbreaks within the province by aerially distributing ERA® oral rabies vaccine baits to red foxes. By the late 1990s, rabies cases in red foxes were rare, with less than 50 annually. But the ERA® oral rabies vaccine did little to help minimize the disease among skunks or raccoons. This is significant because striped skunks are one of the primary rabies vectors in North America, accounting for about 20 percent of reported rabies cases annually. They are also capable of transmitting several variants of rabies including Arctic and raccoon variants. To address this problem, in the mid-2000s OMNR developed ONRAB®, an oral rabies vaccine designed to combat

rabies in Ontario. In the event of discovering a rabid skunk in the future, Rosatte says that high-density ONRAB® oral rabies vaccine baits will be used within 48 hours of diagnosis, which should effectively contain the disease and thereby prevent its spread to foxes, raccoons, and other domestic animals such as cattle. The implications of Rosatte’s research are far ranging, as ONRAB® may also be a tool to combat the spread of rabies in skunks and raccoons elsewhere throughout North America. —Based on research by Rosatte et al. 2011

Out on a Survey? There’s an App for That

Credit: Mark Gibson

Research suggests that a high density of ONRAB oral rabies vaccine baits can successfully curb the spread of rabies in skunks and raccoons throughout North America. ®

rabies in red foxes, striped skunks, and raccoons. Initial trials conducted between 2006 and 2007 demonstrated that the vaccine was in fact effective in raccoons. Rick Rosatte, Senior Research Scientist at OMNR, and his colleagues then decided to test its effectiveness on skunks in southwestern Ontario by distributing vaccine baits by aircraft and by hand at a high density of 300 baits per square kilometer. Between August 2008 and September 2009, over one million ONRAB® vaccine baits were distributed in the vicinity of rabid skunk cases. For aerial distribution, the distance between the aircraft flight lines, or lines of vaccine baits, was 0.25 km and 0.5 km. “As skunks are very sedentary and do not move extensively, baiting lines need to be close together so that skunks have a high probability of encountering vaccine baits,” Rosatte says. After baiting, skunks were live-trapped and researchers collected blood samples so that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency could test blood serum samples for the presence of rabies antibodies, which indicates a positive response to the vaccine. Once an area had been treated with high-density ONRAB® baits, researchers found that Arctic-variant rabies did not recur in skunks. In 2009, only eight skunks were diagnosed with Arctic-variant rabies in Ontario. And in 2011, according to Rosatte, there was only one skunk diagnosed with

Wildlife biologist Sue Senger swears by her year-old iPad. She’s based in Lillooet, British Columbia and works with the St’at’imc First Nations to help manage their wildlife, especially grizzly bears, and address conservation issues in the region. Senger’s job involves going out on grizzly bear habitat surveys, and for that she uses GPS Kit—an app that’s available on iPhones, iPods, and iPads for under $20. The app allows a user to access and download a number of maps and satellite images, and in addition, “you can take GPS points of where you are and you can write field notes and take photographs—all associated with those points,” Senger says. The accuracy of the GPS point can be 10 meters or less without using an antenna, which is comparable to most handheld GPS units, says Senger. Once you’ve gathered all your data, the app allows you to download your notes, photographs, and GPS information onto your computer. Although this app offers several more features than a traditional GPS tool, it does have a few downsides. Given the size of the iPad, for example, using its inbuilt camera to take photographs in the field might prove to be unwieldy: “When it’s windy … it’s hard to hold it still to take a picture,” Senger says. In addition, many biologists might hesitate to dig out an expensive electronic device during bad weather, or might be afraid to drop and possibly damage it along the way. One way to get around that is to use rugged cases designed to protect the iPad. Senger also recommends using iBird Explorer Pro—a $15 app that serves as a field guide to North American birds. It beats having to carry around hefty field guides, and with sound speakers as powerful as those on the iPad, it allows you to access bird sounds directly from the app. Senger took that feature a step further: “I was able to put on an owl call and have the owl answer me,” she says. Inspired by iBird Explorer Pro, Senger says, “I keep saying we have to write a bear app.” —Based on research by Sue Senger

www.wildlife.org

The Wildlife Society

Society News Happy 75th Anniversary, TWS! This year marks the 75th anniversary of the official founding of The Wildlife Society (see page 86). To mark this milestone in our history, TWS is planning a special celebration during its Annual Conference in Portland, Oregon, which will be held October 12-17, 2012. In addition, just prior to the Conference, we will publish a special, commemorative issue of The Wildlife Professional, exploring the history, leaders, accomplishments, and future goals of the Society. TWS also just launched a new video titled “The Wildlife Society—75 Years and Counting.” Produced by Conservation Media and made possible by the generous contributions of TWS members, this video features comments from TWS President Paul Krausman and President-Elect Wini Kessler commenting on the past, present, and future of The Wildlife Society. It also introduces viewers to two young wildlife biologists who discuss their work and the importance of wildlife management and conservation, and express how TWS has helped them advance their careers. Now with record membership of nearly 11,000 professionals, The Wildlife Society is stronger than ever, providing a credible voice for science-based wildlife policy. Thanks to all of you whose dedication has helped make this success possible. We have much to celebrate!

New Editor for WSB In mid-January 2012, TWS’ Governing Council voted unanimously to approve Leonard A. Brennan as the new Editorin-Chief of the Wildlife Society Bulletin (WSB). Brennan succeeds Warren B. Ballard, Jr., who passed away on January 12 (see page 79). Brennan currently holds the C.C. Winn Endowed Chair for Credit: Texas A&M UniversityKingsville Quail Research at Texas A&M University Leonard A. Brennan at Kingsville’s Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute. Prior to this, Brennan was the Director of Research at Florida’s Tall Timbers Research Station. A TWS member since 1982, Brennan has extensive editorial experience with TWS publications. He’s served as Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editor of The Journal of Wildlife Management as well as Associate Editor of WSB, back when it was a print publication. Now, as Editor-in-Chief of the new online-only WSB, Brennan hopes to “help it grow back to and exceed the level of influence and impact WSB had when it was a printed publication.” 78

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

New Science Writer Joins TWP The staff of The Wildlife Professional is delighted to welcome Jessica P. Johnson as our new science writer, replacing Katie Unger, who left at the end of 2011 to take a job as news officer at the University of Pennsylvania. (Best of luck, Katie!) Both a scientist and journalist, Johnson has a B.S. in biology from Cornell University, an M.S. in microbiology from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and an M.S. in science journalism from Boston University. She has experience in both the field and the lab, having worked as a restoration ecologist in San Diego and a biofuels researcher. Deciding to shift her career to science journalism, Johnson gained admission to BU’s prestigious program and began writing news briefs and feature articles for The Scientist magazine. At TWP, Johnson will write Science in Short news briefs and other articles as well as handle a variety of editing and website projects. Welcome, Jessica! Credit: Meg Merckens

Jessica P. Johnson

New Policy Interns at Headquarters In January, TWS’ Government Affairs Department welcomed two new six-month policy interns. Maggie Thomas, who hails from California, has B.S. in biology and environmental science (with a minor in legal studies) from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. After her studies, Thomas joined the California Department of Fish Credit: TWS and Game as a marine biologist, helping to Maggie Thomas design and implement a statewide network of Marine Protected Areas. During her TWS internship, Thomas hopes to gain a greater understanding of environmental policy at the federal level.

Credit: TWS

William Roberts

Florida native William Roberts recently graduated from the University of South Florida at Saint Petersburg with a B.S. in environmental science and policy. Roberts has worked with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Research Institute in Saint Petersburg, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the South Florida Ecological Services Office, and the U.S. Geological Survey’s St. Petersburg © The Wildlife Society

Coastal and Marine Science Center. At TWS, both Thomas and Roberts will assist the Government Affairs staff with tracking wildlife policy news, coordinating the Teaming with Wildlife Fly-In, and writing for TWS publications.

Section Meetings One way to keep track of significant events and activities within your TWS Section is to attend Section meetings. Here’s a rundown of upcoming Section meetings in 2012: • Northeast Section – Meets in conjunction with the 68th Annual Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference in Charleston, West Virginia, April 15-17. • Central Mountain & Plains Section – Meets in Bismarck, North Dakota, September 10-14. • Southeastern Section – Meets in conjunction with the 66th Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in Hot Springs, Arkansas, October 7-10. • North Central Section – Meets in conjunction with 73rd Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference in Wichita, Kansas, December 9-12. • Canadian Section – To Be Announced

Call for Papers The deadline for contributed papers and posters for The Wildlife Society’s 19th Annual Conference is April 13. All contributed papers (oral presentations) will be scheduled for 20 minutes, which includes 15 minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions. This year’s conference will be held from October 13-18 in Portland, Oregon. For more information, go to http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/portland/ call.for.papers.pdf.

International Wildlife Management Congress Join The Wildlife Society in Durban, South Africa for the IV International Wildlife Management Congress taking place from July 9-12, 2012. The theme for the IV IWMC is Cooperative Wildlife Management across Borders: Learning in the Face of Change. Sub-themes will include human dimensions of wildlife management and conservation, professional development and training, climate change, and wildlife health and disease. To register and for more information, go to http://iwmc2012.org. © The Wildlife Society

In Memory Warren B. Ballard, Jr. Warren B. Ballard, Jr.—beloved husband of Heather A. Whitlaw and widely published author, editor, and nationally recognized professor at Texas Tech University’s Department of Natural Resources Management—passed away peacefully at his Lubbock home on January 12, 2012 after a brave fight with pancreatic cancer.

Courtesy of Warren B. Ballard, Jr.

During Ballard’s long career he produced more than 200 peer-reviewed journal articles and raised over $5.9 million in grant, contract, and research funding, which has supported more than 60 graduate students. “His legacy lives on in the students, faculty, and research projects he touched,” says Michael Galyean, Interim Dean of Texas Tech’s College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Ballard was born on April 28, 1947 in Boston, Massachusetts. The family moved to Albuquerque, New Mexico in the early 1950s, where Ballard attended St. Pius X High School. He earned a bachelor’s degree in fish and wildlife management from New Mexico State University; a master’s in environmental biology from Kansas State University; and a doctorate in wildlife science from the University of Arizona. On June 7, 1995, Ballard married the love of his life, Heather Whitlaw. After completing his master’s, Ballard went to work for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1971. From 1973 to 1990 he worked as a wildlife biologist and research scientist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. His groundbreaking research on predator-prey relationships, wolf ecology, and ungulate populations is still widely recognized. Ballard then worked as a consultant with the National Park Service and LGL Alaska (an ecological research company) while getting his Ph.D. He soon became the Director of the New Brunswick Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit (19931996), and then served as Research Supervisor with the Arizona Game and Fish Department (1996-1998) before joining the Texas Tech faculty in 1998. Ballard achieved Full Professor in 2003, was named the Bricker Chair in Wildlife Management in 2006, and Horn Professor in 2008. “Horn Professors … represent the very best of our faculty,” said Texas Tech President Guy Bailey. A member of more than seven professional societies, Warren Ballard served as editor of three international journals includwww.wildlife.org

The Wildlife Society

Society News ing the Wildlife Society Bulletin (twice), and was an Associate Editor of four more including the Wildlife Monographs (four times) and the Wildlife Society Bulletin. The quality of Ballard’s research has been recognized with 22 awards. In 1989, he was honored by his peers with the Distinguished Moose Biologist award. In 2002, he earned the Chancellor’s Council Distinguished Research Award at Texas Tech as well as a special service recognition award from The Wildlife Society. Ballard was recognized as the Outstanding Researcher in the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources at Texas Tech—four times. He became a TWS Fellow in 2005, and has won various society awards for best professional article, monograph, and publications. On January 19, 2012, family and friends of Dr. Ballard gathered in Lubbock to celebrate his life. Information about the service memorial is available at http://www.memorialdesigners.net/ obituaries/Warren-Ballard/. In addition, information about the Warren B. Ballard Scholarship is available at www.give2tech.com. —Contributed by Mark Wallace, chairman of Texas Tech’s Department of Natural Resources.

David B. Marshall On November 22, 2011, the wildlife profession lost David B. Marshall, a founding member of The Wildlife Society’s Oregon Chapter as well as a noted scientist, naturalist, historian, and bird expert known for his remarkable encyclopedic knowledge of Oregon’s wildlife. Credit: John Marshall

Marshall was born on March 7, 1926 in Portland, Oregon. His keen eye for bird watching began in his childhood, fostered in part by his parents, Earl A. and Dorothy B. Marshall, who were among the earliest members of what is now the Audubon Society of Portland. Marshall left Oregon during World War II to serve as a ball turret gunner in the Army Air Forces. Upon returning stateside, he enrolled at what is now Oregon State University, graduating in 1950 with a degree in fish and game management. He then started the beginning of a lengthy career with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which took him to several wildlife refuges throughout the 1950s, including positions in Nevada, California, and Oregon. Marshall was a crucial leader in establishing the Basket Slough, Finley, and Ankeny Wildlife Refuges in Oregon’s Willamette 80

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Valley. In 1960, he became a regional wildlife biologist, with responsibilities stretching across Hawaii, Alaska, and six western states. During that time he inventoried wildlife on the Laysan Island in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, and he worked to return musk ox to Alaska’s Arctic Slope. In 1965, Marshall served as the second president of the Oregon Chapter of The Wildlife Society. The chapter’s most prestigious award, the David B. Marshall Award, is named in his honor and recognizes outstanding contributions in wildlife research, management, education, law enforcement, or public service related to natural-resource conservation in Oregon. In 1973, Marshall became chief biologist for birds and mammals in the endangered species program in Washington, D.C., where he worked on issues affecting such keystone species as bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and the northern spotted owl. In 1981, at the age of 55, Marshall retired from FWS, but he he continued to work for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife well into his 70s. In 1986, Marshall wrote the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s first non-game plan, a foundational model used by other agencies across the country. In 2003, Marshall co-authored Birds of Oregon: A General Reference, a 700-page book detailing 486 bird species, touted by many as the premier source of Oregon ornithology. David G. Rose David G. Rose, a lifetime member of The Wildlife Society since 1959, died December 11, 2011 at his home in Ethel, Missouri. He was 79. Rose, born in west-central Wisconsin, received his B.S. in wildlife biology from Humboldt State University in 1960. After Credit: Nancy Rose attending graduate school for two years at Southern Illinois University, Rose went to work for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) at the Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge near Marion, Illinois, home to the first protected wilderness area in the state. Rose continued with the FWS for nearly two decades, working for most of that time as a wetlands manager in Hastings, Nebraska. There, Rose restored wetlands and prairies located within wildlife refuges that were integral stopping points along the major Central Flyway migratory path of waterfowl traveling between Canada and the Gulf of Mexico. In the early 1980s, Rose settled in Missouri, spending the last decade before his retirement as a field biologist for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. According to his daughter Nancy Rose, he valued TWS publications throughout his career as a way to keep current with scientific research in his field. © The Wildlife Society

Wayne W. Sandfort Wayne W. Sandfort, a leader in wildlife management and research in Colorado and a long-term member of The Wildlife Society, died on November 10, 2011 at the age of 87. Born in Humboldt, Nebraska, Sandfort attended Colorado State University where he obtained both his undergraduate and Courtesy of Del Sandfort graduate degrees. Sandfort was the first student in the Colorado Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit. After a year at Colorado State, he joined the U.S. Army where he spent three years in the 139th Engineering Forestry Company. Sandfort worked for 33 years with the Colorado Game and Fish Department (now the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife) as an upland game biologist, leader of statewide upland game bird surveys, game research chief, state game manager, and assistant director. He retired in 1983. Sandfort was best known for his work with upland game birds, especially pheasants. He initiated many research projects in

ÂŠ The Wildlife Society

Colorado and authored numerous publications on wildlife. Sandfort also mentored many employees of the Department, always supportive of their professional careers. The Wildlife Society was a big part of his life. In 1955, he became the first President of the Central Mountains and Plains Section, Regional Representative to TWS from 1970-73, and Vice President of the Society in 1974-75. Sandfort was a Charter Member of the Colorado Chapter and served on numerous committees at all levels of the Society. He received a number of awards, including the TWS Honorary Membership award in 1991. In 2009, he received a special citation from Colorado Governor Bill Ritter for his extraordinary service to that state. Sandfort is survived by his wife of 62 years, Virginia (Ginger); three children Del, Cal, and Melissa; five grandchildren and two great granddaughters. He will be remembered as a kind and caring person, devoted to wildlife and their habitats. â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Contributed by Len H. Carpenter, Past President, TWS

www.wildlife.org

The Wildlife Society

working group News In Focus

meeting at last year’s TWS Annual Conference in Hawaii, where they added 15 new members. The working group’s main objective is to share information and facilitate discussions among biologists working on military lands in the United States and Canada. They have double the number of members now and are already planning activities for the coming months. “We’ve submitted a proposal for a symposium in Portland,” says working group co-chair Rhys Evans. The symposium, “Monitoring and Managing Wildlife Populations on Military Lands,” will include presentations on a variety of faunal groups in several states as well as at least one presentation from Canada. In addition, the Working Group has partnered with the Early Career Professional Working Group and the Student Professional Development Working Group on a proposal for a panel discussion on “Entrylevel Federal Career Opportunities.”

It’s been one year since The Wildlife Society Forestry and Wildlife Working Group was formed, and already they’re showing signs of healthy growth. The working group—with three interim officers and 85 members—had a successful roll-out meeting at The Wildlife Society Annual Conference in Hawaii. Since then, they’ve continued work on finalizing a charter and bylaws, submitted technical input on the TWS Position Statement regarding the Recognition of Wildlife Needs in Forest Management Planning, and co-sponsored two proposed symposia for the 2012 Annual Conference. In an effort to expand the group, “we are looking at opportunities to branch out and include more members from other regions,” says working group chair Robert Carey. The working group is also looking to form committees for fundraising and membership development, and establishing WG communications via a newsletter and social media outlets.

Biometrics Working Group Student Travel Grants

Another group that formed last year appears to be keeping equally busy. The Military Lands Working Group had their first official

ED DE IT EN M ATT

.O NO

The Biometrics Working Group (BWG) is offering student travel grants of up to $2,500 for TWS student members presenting papers or posters at The Wildlife Society’s upcoming Annual Conference in Portland, Oregon. The key purpose of the travel grant is to promote interest in biometrics and the BWG. Applicants must be students and members of The Wildlife Society. Preference will be given to applicants who demonstrate strong statistical or mathematical skills. The application deadline is July 1, 2012. For more information on eligibility criteria, or to submit an application, contact Katie Moriarty at ktmoriarty22@yahoo.com, or CHURCHILL go to http://joomla.wildlife.org/Biometrics. ES

actual mural scale

A Go air

MANITOB

or rail THOMPSON

Wolf experts and scientists from Canada, USA and Russia, plus researchers, students, conservationists, ecotourism operators, and others will meet in the wilderness of northern Canada to dialogue on wolves as an “Ecological and Economic Asset”. Four topic themes will cover wolf science, research, conservation, and eco-tourism. Book your place today!

Details at... www.thompsonspiritway.ca Ph. 1-204-677-1900 Ph. 1-866-WOLF -FUN (965-3386) PLUS: visit the Polar Bear Capital!

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Go air or road WINNIPEG

In Print Erik Beever, past chair of the Biological Diversity Working Group, and TWS member Jerrold Belant, have written a book titled “The Ecological Consequences of Climate Change: Mechanisms, Conservation, and Management.” The book synthesizes modeling tools and realworld examples from diverse ecosystems and taxa to help explain biotic responses to climate change and better inform wildlife conservation and management. In the book, authors describe efforts to monitor and interpret these changes, and succinctly review research gaps in our understanding of mechanisms involved.

The Wildlife Society

student news New Student Chapters We’d like to welcome two new student chapters. The University of Maryland chapter formed in October 2011 and already has 31 members and more than 150 people signed up on its mailing list. “There are definitely tons of really interested students at our campus,” says chapter president Michael Ellis. “Now the hardest part is keeping our members engaged professionally in our student chapter.” To do that, the chapter has planned a number of events and activities for the coming months, including setting up and monitoring nest boxes on campus and participating in other wildlife monitoring programs, such as the North American Amphibian Monitoring Program. Chapter members will also attend the 2012 Southeastern Wildlife Conclave in Tennessee, where they’ll participate in field trips and workshops. The Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina— formed in December 2011—has hit the ground running. “We’ve already had a camping trip to Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest, hosted a Lumberjack Ball, and held a stream shocking demonstration on campus,” says Krisha Faw, president of the chapter. “This semester we plan on attending the NC TWS Chapter annual meeting and the Southeastern conclave, having a chili cook-off as a fundraiser, and we have some exciting guest speakers lined up.”

Northeast Student Colloquium in April The Wildlife Society’s West Virginia University (WVU) Student Chapter and the WVU American Fisheries Society Chapter will host a Student Colloquium from April 14-15 in Charleston, West Virginia. The theme of the Colloquium is “North to South: Fish and Wildlife Biology and Management from Maine to Florida.” Organizers are expecting roughly 75 to 100 attendees and have planned an opening social and poster and oral presentations. The Colloquium will immediately precede the 2012 NEAFWA meeting, scheduled for April 15-17.

have also planned a résumé, cover letter, and interview panel workshop, where participants will meet academic, private, state, and federal agency representatives who will talk about the hiring process within their agencies. Competitions will begin the following day. “Archery, orienteering, photography, dendrology ID, and fly-casting are some examples students will be able to choose from,” Christopher says. “An award ceremony will take place following the competitions around noon.” To see the full list of conclaves and pick one closest to you, go to www.wildlife.org.

Research in Progress Congratulations to the following individuals for their awardwinning submissions in the 2011 Student Research in Progress category: Best Poster Overall: Serra Hoagland Best Undergraduate Poster: Rebecca Doll Best M.S. poster: Joslin Heyward Best Ph.D. poster: Jason Carlisle

Quiz Bowl Winners

Upcoming Conclave The California University of Pennsylvania’s TWS Student Chapter will hold its annual conclave at Laurelville Conference Center in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania from April 13-15. In addition to an icebreaker on Friday the 13th, the Conclave will offer 12 workshops all day Saturday, which will touch upon a number of issues including fracking, science-based ecological restoration, and management of wildlife disease. “I’m really excited about Saturday,” says Frank Christopher, vice president of the student chapter. “We are in the process of contacting local chapters of federal organizations such as NWTF, Ruffed Grouse Society, Rocky Mountain Elk Federation, TWS, and many more, to send representatives to [the] conclave to sell memberships ... and give details about their organizations.” Conclave organizers 84

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Credit: TWS

A team from Humbolt State University won the 2011 Quiz Bowl at the Annual Conference in Hawaii. Standing with TWS Executive Director/ CEO Michael Hutchins (far left), TWS President-Elect Wini Kessler (middle), and TWS President Paul Krausman (far right), the winning team includes (left to right) Brian Fagundas, Phil Choan, team captain Aaron Spidal, and Amy Leigh Trost. (Sam Aguilar is not pictured.) Virginia Tech’s team came in a close second after a nail-biting finish.

American Public University

More knowledgeable staff makes a stronger team.

And youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re one click away from making it happen.

ive your employees access to a quality online education. American Public University offers more than 150 degree and certificate programs in a wide variety of specialties. Our tuition is far less than other top online universities so you can help further your employeesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; education without breaking the bank. You might even find some classes that are right for you too. Learn more about one of the best values in online education at StudyatAPU.com/wildlife

Art & Humanities // Business // Education // Management // Public Safety & Health // Science & Technology // Security & Global Studies

The Birth of The Wildlife Society By Divya Abhat

lmost a century before The Wildlife Society came into being, its historic foundations were well underway. In the mid- to late1800s, industrialization and market gunners in the U.S. and Canada took their toll on wildlife and habitat, leading to the near demise of several species. Concerned about species survival, sport hunters joined forces to turn the tide. Thus began the conservation movement in North America, a movement that gave rise to the wildlife profession and our Society.

These early conservation pioneers—comprising mostly hunting groups, such as the Boone and Crockett Club and New York Sportsmen’s Club as well as conservation greats like George Bird Grinnell and Theodore Roosevelt—called for government protection of wildlife populations and habitat. That in turn led to the establishment of state and provincial game agencies in the U.S. and Canada and the passage of a number of critical conservation laws, including the 1842 Martin v. Waddell ruling and the Lacey Act of 1900. In those early days, wildlife conservation mainly focused on hunting-related activities, such as game breeding, refuge establishment, and predator control. However, in the 1920s a group Credit: Wayne Lewis/CDOW of conservationists—including Aldo Leopold, quail expert Herbert Stoddard, and Arthur Allen (founder of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology)—began to broaden the scope of wildlife conservation by discussing topics like wildlife ecology and management. Within a decade, wildlife conservation and management became recognized as a formal discipline. As momentum continued to build, wildlifers began to recognize the need for a Divya Abhat is national professional society whose core objective Managing Editor would be to promote communication among wildlife of The Wildlife Professional. practitioners and establish professional and ethical standards for the profession.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

A New Society is Born

In December 1935, more than 300 wildlife professionals met in Urbana, Illinois to discuss the need for just such a professional organization. They selected a committee to present their ideas at the First North American Wildlife Conference, held in February 1936, which soon led to the creation of what was called The Society of Wildlife Specialists. During that conference, a regional advisory board of 13 wildlife professionals was created, as well as positions for president, first vice president, second vice president, and secretary treasurer. In addition, the newly elected president, biologist Ralph T. King, appointed Aldo Leopold and Herbert Stoddard as counselors for the new Society. The following year, in 1937, The Society of Wildlife Specialists held its first formal meeting at the Second North American Wildlife Conference in St. Louis, Missouri, where the organization was renamed The Wildlife Society. TWS officers adopted a constitution and bylaws and established an annual membership fee of $3. They also introduced The Wildlife Society logo, an emblem of Egyptian hieroglyphs that depict, from top to bottom, mammals, birds, fish, and flowering plants—all representative of The Wildlife Society’s broad interests. That same year, in July, The Wildlife Society launched its scholarly journal The Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) and appointed W. L. McAtee (then secretary treasurer for the Society) as editor. By the end of the first year, the journal had published its first volume, and membership had surpassed 600 people. In that first edition of JWM, McAtee voiced an expectation for a professional wildlife society: “The need is great, the aim is high, and a thoroughgoing professional organization is required.” The Wildlife Society has fulfilled that expectation. Today, your professional organization has grown to nearly 11,000 wildlife managers, researchers, technicians, educators, students, and others who work to conserve wildlife and its habitats worldwide. McAtee, Leopold, Stoddard, and TWS’ other early pioneers would have been proud.

350 TWS The Wildlife Professional 1C 01/10/12

03/10/12

Field Vests

Binoculars

Live Capture Traps

Animal Handling Gloves

Sampling Squares

Snake Protection

Stealth Boats

Wood Duck Nesting Boxes

Pesola Hanging Scales

Hog Slammer

GPS

Game Cameras

Yeah. We do that. IT’S ALL HERE We have over 720 pages of surprises! Call 800-360-7788 to order your FREE catalog today.

Some folks are surprised to learn of all the things sold by Forestry Suppliers. But the fact is that we’ve been outfitting outdoor professionals from all walks with the finest quality gear for more than 60 years. Our 720+ page catalog and easy-to-use web site features thousands of products, and we still back each one with our 100% Satisfaction Guarantee. Surprise yourself. Call 800-360-7788 or go online to order your FREE catalog today.

FORESTRY

SUPPLIERS

AllMedia_2012.indd 11

12/29/11 4:05 PM

Credit: Howard Clark

This lone velvet ant (Dasymutilla sackenii) was scurrying across the arid soils of Californiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Carrizo Plain when photographer Howard Clark spotted it. The seemingly fuzzy creature is actually not an ant at all, but a wasp whose females are capable of administering excruciating stings. Its velvety tufts, which can range from vivid shades of red and orange, to black, white, silver and gold, are a form of aposematism that warn predators to stay away.

Credit: Derek Hall

A young mountain lion (Puma concolor) squeaks out a roar for the camera. Generally elusive creatures, mountain lions have the biggest range of any large terrestrial mammal in the Western Hemisphere.

Send your high-resolution, minimum 300-dpi electronic photographs to editor@wildlife.org.

The Wildlife Professional, Spring 2012

Credit: John Hayes

A southern masked weaver (Ploceus velatus) tends its nest in Swaziland, Africa. Males build the intricate round nests, while their mates line the interior with softer bits of grasses and leaves.

For a photo gallery of more Gotcha! images, go to www.wildlife.org.

ÂŠ The Wildlife Society

North Star Science and Technology, LLC North Star Science and Technology, LLC is a premier supplier of satellite transmitters for tracking

is a premier supplier of satellite transmitters for tracking birds and terrestrial animals. birds and terrestrial animals. 22 Gram Solar GPS PTT 22 Gram Solar GPS PTT

9.5 Gram Solar PTT 9.5 Gram Solar PTT

• We make Argos Platform Transmitter Terminals (PTTs) • We make Argos Platform Transmitter Terminals (PTTs) as small as 9.5 grams and GPS PTTs as small as 22 grams. as small as 9.5 grams and GPS PTTs as small as 22 grams.

We offer a full line of battery powered We offer a full line of battery powered and solar powered PTTs in a wide range and solar powered PTTs in a wide range of sizes, exclusively for birds.We will of sizes, exclusively for birds.We will start offering harness drop-offs in 2011. start offering harness drop-offs in 2011. • Our Globalstar GPS tracking collars provide data from the • Our Globalstar GPS tracking collars provide data from the field to the internet in real time. Collars are available in field to the internet in real time. Collars are available in sizes ranging from 400 grams on up (C, 2C, D, and 2D cell sizes ranging from 400 grams on up (C, 2C, D, and 2D cell battery configurations), with battery lives measured in battery configurations), with battery lives measured in years. years.

Our Globalstar tracking system incudes a Our Globalstar tracking system incudes a ‘non moving’ alarm and a geo-fence, along ‘non moving’ alarm and a geo-fence, along with a mapping application that allows you with a mapping application that allows you to plot points in Google Earth™. to plot points in Google Earth™.

410-961-6692 410-961-6692 www.northstarst.com www.northstarst.com blake@northstarst.com blake@northstarst.com

Try a demonstration collar Try a demonstration collar for free; just ask us. for free; just ask us.