Wildlife Working Group

Documentation

Issue Statement - Wildlife

1. There is a general lack of understanding about the value and importance of wildlife among Canadians, and no agency is acting as a repository for this information.
   • Wildlife is a “public good.” Assessing its contribution to Canadian society is difficult, thus making it challenging to convince Canadian decision makers about its importance when making resource development decisions.
   • The socio-economic impacts of wildlife diseases can be large, affecting human health, agriculture and food safety, Aboriginal economies and cultures, nature-based industries and wildlife conservation, including species at risk. A study in 1996 demonstrated that such activity contributed $12.1 billion to the Canadian GDP in that year, equivalent to the $12.3 billion that was the total contribution to the GDP by all of agriculture.1
     
     
2. The importance of wildlife health is not well understood by domestic animal and public health professionals.
   Many of the important health issues of the past 50 years have involved infectious diseases of wild animals that have been transmitted to humans and domestic animals. Approximately 70% of new or newly important diseases affecting human health and human economies worldwide are believed to have a wild animal source. Diseases originating from wild species are having an increasingly serious impact on human health, agriculture production, ecosystem integrity, biodiversity and world economies.2
   
   
3. There is a need to look at ways to minimize the spread of wildlife diseases, which are emerging at an unprecedented rate.
   Wildlife populations are vectors for emerging and re-emerging diseases that affect wild animals, domestic animal and public health. Canada's capacity to manage important disease issues has been challenged in recent years by the number, complexity and magnitude of high-impact disease occurrences, and the threat of bioterrorism. Existing regulations, inspection and enforcement procedures need be reviewed and strengthened to minimize the risk of the movement and spread of the full range of wildlife disease threats.2
   
   
4. A lack of adequate funding limits our ability to prevent, detect, respond to and manage diseases of concern in wild animal populations.
   F/P/T Ministers approved the National Wildlife Disease Strategy (NWDS) in 2005. It is a landmark agreement that establishes a collaborative and coordinated approach to prevent, detect, respond, manage, educate and train and communicate wildlife disease issues across Canada. The NWDS has no formal resources to implement the action plans and priorities established by F/P/T governments and the non-governmental community.
   
   
5. There is a lack of a coordinated, multi-animal sector (i.e. wildlife, public health, domestic animal) approach to preventing, detecting, responding to and managing wildlife disease concerns.
   Wildlife disease issues affect multiple departments and agencies within governments, as well as federal, provincial, territorial, Aboriginal, regional, municipal and non-government jurisdictions, simultaneously.2 Likewise, these issues involve the interests of a range of non-governmental groups. The wildlife community itself has recently finalized the NWDS (2004); however, the roles and responsibilities of domestic animal and public health sectors with respect to wildlife health have yet to be agreed upon.
   
   
6. No organization in Canada is responsible for monitoring or managing feral animals, which poses a threat to wildlife health.
   A feral animal is an animal that was once domesticated, but has escaped or was released and has returned to its wild state. In Canada, feral cats, dogs, horses and swine pose a significant threat to wildlife health. Swine, for example, “are a major reservoir, amplifier, mixing vessel and vector of disease and people, pets, livestock and wildlife. In the U.S., feral swine are conservatively estimated to have caused $800 million/year in damage, $52 million of agricultural damage per year in Texas alone.”3
   
   
7. There is a need to address the risk that toxic substances pose on wild animal health. Wild animals act as sentinels for potential human and domestic animal illnesses due to chemical pollution.2 Modern society has developed an extensive array of synthetic chemicals over the last several decades – chemicals to control disease, increase food production, and to provide convenience in our daily lives. Many of these well-intentioned chemicals are now wreaking havoc around the world, threatening the health of wildlife and people… Wildlife, people and entire ecosystems are threatened by chemicals that can alter sexual and neurological development, impair reproduction, and undermine immune systems… Wildlife as diverse as polar bears, whales, frogs, eagles, and fish are contaminated with pesticides and industrial chemicals. 4
   
   
8. As a food source (country/wild foods), contaminated or diseased wildlife can pose a domestic animal and human health hazard.
   The poisoning of people, marine mammals, birds and fish with biological toxins, such as botulism; blue-green algal toxins; marine toxins, such as domoic acid; paralytic shellfish toxins; and Pfeisteria toxins have complex ecological causes, involving agriculture, waste disposal and a range of human activities.2
   
   
9. If the NAHS results in the improvement of wildlife health, then, there may be more abundant wild animals, thus changing the extent and potential nature of human/domestic animal/wildlife interactions.
   The increase in wildlife populations could lead to more conflicts with human and domestic animal populations. It is important for the National Animal Health Strategy (NAHS) to ensure that there are plans in place to manage these populations – specifically, recognize declining hunter population trends, re-evaluate bag limits, adequately support government enforcement capabilities, as well as updating legislation.

Additional Issues (Research, Engagement Discussions etc.): NAHS Team

1. F/P/T governments have limited legislative authority over wildlife health. 
   F/P/T authority over wildlife health issues is not all encompassing, particularly, considering the lack of clarity for Aboriginal roles and responsibilities in land claim agreement as it relates to animal health. In the North, for example, a major stressor on wildlife health is the lack of coordinated decision making regarding hunting/ecotourism outfitters.
   
   
2. Governments have yet to develop ways to cooperatively manage wildlife populations that cover large land areas that do not adhere to political boundaries.
   Governments have limited capacity in monitoring wildlife health and in enforcing their current legislative mandate with respect to wildlife health on such wide land areas. Interprovincial and international governmental cooperation on these issues is even more difficult to coordinate.
   
   
3. The effects of human interventions on wildlife health are not well understood by decision makers.
   Additional research capabilities would allow F/P/T governments to better understand the impact that human interventions have on wildlife health (e.g. impact of urbanization and of natural resource exploitation on ecosystem health and wildlife movement, validation of diagnostic tools to assess wildlife health, etc). Currently, decisions are made with inadequate information.
   
   
4. F/P/T governments and NGOs have limited access to pathology and necropsy experts to analyze wildlife specimens.
   Limited funding makes the sending of specimens to competent laboratories often difficult. In Canada, there is a team of veterinarians and academics doing excellent work in this area (the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre), but its team is small and its capacity is limited.
   
   
5. Wildlife populations, by definition, are not under human control. As a result, monitoring the movement, health and numbers of wildlife populations is difficult and expensive.
   1. The technology required to track animals is "invasive" and difficult to use. Few research projects allow governments and NGOs to understand wildlife populations and their movements in Canada.
   2. When wild animals are found dead, it is often difficult to travel to their location quickly enough to obtain good quality samples to analyze.
   3. Affordable helicopter fleets are older and less reliable. There are no publicly funded transport options to remote areas where wildlife issues may arise quickly.
      
      
6. Aboriginal communities differ from other communities in their beliefs regarding human intervention for public health and animal health purposes.
   In many parts of Canada, Aboriginal communities are the only stewards of the land. Generally, these communities do not believe in human intervention (e.g. vaccines, treatments, neuter/spaying) for public health or animal health purposes. This cultural difference limits the government’s flexibility in managing disease in remote areas and/or when Aboriginals are involved.
   
   
7. There is limited knowledge about the health of wildlife in Canada. 
   To validate diagnostic tests, scientists require a population of healthy animals and a population of infected animals. Access to an entire population in the wild is almost impossible, thus making it difficult to obtain statistically valid information and validated diagnostic tests for wildlife. However, the lack of confidence in results using non-validated diagnostic tests on wildlife compromises our ability to decide on appropriate interventions.
   
   
8. There are limited wildlife health professionals across Canada, particularly in rural and remote areas.
   Veterinarians generally practice in urban areas, and there are limited numbers and capacity of other wildlife health experts, such as wildlife biologists and knowledgeable individuals (i.e. Aboriginals, wildlife enthusiasts, etc). This compromises governments' ability to prevent health issues, to detect and confirm issues early, to respond to issues rapidly, and to educate or train other potential partners in surveillance on an ongoing basis.
   
   
9. There are unknown risks when people from “all walks of life” interact with wildlife.
   Wildlife populations, by definition, are not under human control. As a result, anyone can interact with wildlife populations. In general, the human population’s interaction with Canada’s wildlife populations enhances surveillance, but there are risks. Visitors, for example, may introduce pathogens and encourage habits that may compromise the health of wildlife populations.
   
   
10. Urban and rural Canadians have different views on wildlife management and health issues.
    Although Canadians value wildlife from a cultural, social, environmental and economical perspective, they do not necessarily understand the need for and approaches to wildlife management. Consequently, they may misunderstand decisions regarding wildlife management.