Wildlife Working Group

Documentation

Issue Template - Wildlife

WILDLIFE WORKING GROUP

Wildlife includes terrestrial and aquatic animals that are free-ranging and not dependant on humans for food, shelter or other essential functions. For the purpose of the National Animal Health Strategy (NAHS), wildlife includes introduced and indigenous species, as well as domestic animals that have become feral. The species of predominant concern to the NAHS are the following vertebrates: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.

Wildlife is a public resource that is consumed by some (e.g. hunting, fishing, trapping) but not all (e.g. wildlife viewing, biodiversity, etc.) As a result, wildlife differs from other animal groups in that these animals are “owned” and under human control.

DEFINITION: Animal Health

The state of a living animal, species or population which can sustain biological functions to preserve its own integrity. The definition of “animal health” includes animal welfare (but not animal rights).
Specific comments from government:

• The definition requires the following caveat: "If there is a discrepancy between this definition of wildlife and the definition found in federal/provincial/territorial legislation or regulations, the latter takes precedent at all times."
• This definition may need to be adapted as clarity of the Strategy and its key elements and objectives are refined.

Specific comments from the NGO Community:

• Habitat quantity and quality are integral to the health and welfare of wildlife.
• Typical predator–prey relations may not be condoned by humans, but are a natural phenomenon in the wild.
• Wildlife management techniques, such as controlled hunting, population culls etc., are necessary control strategies. Wildlife populations naturally fluctuate over time.
• Disease is a natural phenomenon in the wild and integral to healthy, functioning ecosystems and self-regulating wildlife populations.
• There is a distinction between animal health and the means to achieving animal health.
• The species or the population unit is of greatest concern, not specific individuals.

The NAHS definition of wildlife needs to be inclusive of all animals and is not intended to replace those currently associated with any jurisdiction.

DEFINITION: Animal Welfare

• Special wildlife considerations:
  • Wildlife population levels are naturally cyclic, and the general public may perceive welfare issues as overabundant populations naturally reduce in size.
  • Education and communication will be important to explain the special considerations with respect to wildlife populations.
• Animal welfare applies to wildlife differently than to other animal sectors, because wild animal populations are not under human control; rather, they are subject to human influence.
• Welfare is a sensitive issue for many animal groups; thus, it is important that the terms used are clear and not subject to too much interpretation.

Specific comments from government:

• Animal welfare should apply to wildlife only when wild animals are in the physical care of humans (i.e. research, handling, capture, etc.)
  • There was consensus that the principles identified in the CCAC Guidelines: care and use of wildlife should be applied when wild animals are under the physical care of humans.
  • This responsibility does not extend to intervention in the management of individual wild animals and their populations (i.e. when animals suffer or die as part of natural processes).

Specific comments from the NGO Community:

• Restricting animal welfare to “physical care” is too restrictive; human activities can significantly affect animal welfare (i.e. some pesticide formulations, oil spills, etc.).

The NAHS should not establish animal welfare guidelines that conflict with existing standards.

ISSUES related to 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.
2. The importance of wildlife health is not well understood by domestic animal and public health professionals.
3. There is a need to look at ways to minimize the spread of wildlife diseases, which are emerging at an unprecedented rate.
4. A lack of adequate funding limits our ability to prevent, detect, respond to and manage diseases of concern in wild animal populations.
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.
6. There is no organization in Canada that is responsible for monitoring or managing feral animals, which is a threat to wildlife health, in Canada.
7. There is a need to address the risk that toxic substances pose on wild animal health.
8. As a food source (country/wild foods), contaminated or diseased wildlife can pose a domestic animal and human health hazard.
9. If the NAHS results in the improvement of wildlife health, then, there may be more abundant wild animals. This will change the extent and potential nature of human/domestic animal/wildlife interactions.

Additional Issues raised by the NAHS Team (from research, engagement discussions etc)

1. F/P/T governments have limited legislative authority over wildlife health. 
2. Governments have yet to develop ways to cooperatively manage wildlife populations that cover large land areas that do not adhere to political boundaries.
3. The effects of human interventions on wildlife health are not well understood by decision makers.
4. F/P/T governments and NGOs have limited access to pathology and necropsy experts to analyze wildlife specimens.
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.
6. Aboriginal communities differ from other communities in their beliefs regarding human intervention for public health and animal health practices.
7. There is limited knowledge about the health of wildlife in Canada.
8. There are limited wildlife health professionals across Canada, particularly in rural and remote areas.
9. There are unknown risks when people from “all walks of life” interact with wildlife.
10. Urban and rural Canadians have different views on wildlife management and health issues.

Proposed NAHS OUTCOMES (limited discussion only)

1. Protect ecosystem health through prudent animal health practices.
2. Demonstrate and sustain the economic importance of wildlife.
3. Prevent exposure of animals to emerging disease, toxic substances and other health hazards.
4. Sustain animal health, viable animal populations and their genetic diversity.
5. Protect public health by minimizing the potential negative impact of pathogens and toxic substances in animals, animal products and by-products on humans and ecosystems.
6. Develop integrated governance to mitigate identifiable risks and to overcome jurisdictional uncertainties.
7. Strengthen domestic and international confidence in the integrity of Canada's animal health, environment protection and food safety inspection systems.
8. Minimize the economic and social consequences of disease occurrences.