A New Approach for Managing Bovine Tuberculosis: Veterinary Services’ Proposed Action Plan

Bovine tuberculosis (TB) is a serious disease with animal health, public health, and international trade consequences. The cooperative Federal-State-industry effort to eradicate bovine TB from cattle in the United States has made significant progress since the program’s inception in 1917. However, the goal of eradication remains elusive. This proposed action plan presents Veterinary Services’ (VS’) current thinking about changes we are considering for the TB program to address our current challenges. This action plan will: 1. Reduce the introduction of TB into the U.S. national herd from imported animals and wildlife by: o Applying additional requirements to cattle imports from Mexico o Enhancing efforts to mitigate risks from wildlife 2. Enhance TB surveillance by: o Crafting a comprehensive national surveillance plan o Accelerating diagnostic test development to support surveillance 3. Increase options for managing TB-affected herds by: o Conducting epidemiological investigations and assessing individual herd risk o Applying whole-herd depopulation judiciously and developing alternative control strategies o Applying animal identification (ID) standards to meet animal ID needs 4. Modernize the regulatory framework to allow VS to focus resources where the disease exists 5. Transition the TB program from a State classification system to a science-based zoning approach to address disease risk To succeed, this new approach will require VS’ continued partnership with State animal health and wildlife officials, other Federal agencies, industry, international partners, academia, and other stakeholders. Successful partnerships will allow us to use available resources efficiently to achieve program objectives and protect our nation’s herd. Implementation of the VS proposed action plan will benefit Federal and State animal health officials, the regulated industries, and producers by allowing a more rapid response that employs up-to-date science and can adapt rapidly to changing situations.

Evaluation of a New Strategy for Control of Bovine Tuberculosis in Michigan White-Tailed Deer: Year 1 Progress Report

The State of Michigan is striving to eliminate bovine tuberculosis (Tb) infection among free-ranging white-tailed deer in the northeastern Lower Peninsula of the state. Aggressive reduction in the overall deer population abundance may help to further reduce TB prevalence, but this course of action is unacceptable to many hunters and landowners. Targeted culling of sick deer would likely be far more acceptable to these stakeholders, so in the winter of 2003 the Michigan Department of Natural Resources pilot-trialed a new strategy based on live-trapping and Tb-testing of wild deer. The field study was conducted in a township with relatively high TB prevalence within Deer Management Unit 452 in the northeastern Lower Peninsula. Over a 2-month trapping period, 119 individual deer were live-trapped, blood sampled, fitted with a radio-collar, and released. A total of 31 of these deer were subsequently classified as Tb-suspect by at least one of five blood tests employed (however there was a low level of agreement among tests). A delay in testing meant that only six of these suspect deer were culled by sharpshooters before pre-programmed release of their radio-collars, after which they could no longer be located. Mycobacterium bovis was cultured from one of these six suspect deer; the other five were negative on culture. All target deer were located to within shooting range with 1 – 2 days of effort, and all the radio-collars on the apparently-healthy deer dropped off after the intended 90-day interval, and were thereafter recovered for re-use. There was considerable support for this pilot project among hunters, farmers, state and federal agriculture agencies, the media and the general public, and so we recommend that further field trials be undertaken using this technique. The initial focus of these trials should be on improving the efficacy and reliability of the blood testing procedure.

WOLF CONTROL IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

Up to 1949, the Fish and Game Branch employed personnel, some of whom were temporary, to attempt control of the extremely high wolf pop¬ulations of the central and northern portions of British Columbia. Coyotes were also very numerous in the central and southern regions and had to be considered because of their depredations. The field men were keen and conscientious but their efforts were not co-ordinated. Control areas were severely restricted in size as techniques were not adaptable enough and because of a lack of manpower. Eventually, sheepmen went out of business entirely over wide areas, cattlemen were subjected to huge annual losses, and sportsmen were very concerned. However, stock losses constituted the major complaint and resulted in ranchers demanding action* Two major changes came out of this. First, the bounty on wolves was raised and second, the present Predator Control Division was formed. The administration was convinced that a force of experienced, fully-trained field staff under a single supervision would be far more effective than bounty payments. Unfortunately, bounties were in vogue during that time and forced the necessity of proving the worth of organized controls before any consideration could be given to the elimination of the bounty system.

EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL TECHNIQUES USING AVICIDE 3, CHLORO-P-TOLUIDINE

Bird depredations in Virginia have been estimated by the Extension Service, State Department of Agriculture, and the Division of Wildlife Services to be approxi¬mately $5,000,000 annually. As part of a continuing program to reduce this damage, these agencies have tested certain experimental techniques using the avicide, 3, chloro-p-toluidine, chosen for its relative selectivity, low secondary hazard, and slow action. The situations in which the avicide was tested were feedlots, decoy crops, roost reduction, and pigeon control.

BIRD CONTROL UNDER A STATE FISH AND GAME PERMIT SYSTEM

I guess the impetus for laws in our state, really was the action of the city of Boston in 1963, when the Parks and Recreation Department felt that it was time to do something about massive populations of pigeons on the Boston Commons and in the city. The Parks Department came to our agency to find out what could be done. We immediately found as a result of a reorganization and recodification of the laws some 20 years before, that it was illegal to use or apply poisons for the purpose of killing any birds or mammals in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Property owners were given the privilege to destroy animals that were doing damage to their property, but only through mechanical means, certainly not by the use of toxicants. We helped the city of Boston draft a bill in 1963, which allowed our agency, the Division of Fisheries and Game, the agency responsible for all wildlife species in the state, the opportunity to issue certain permits for the use of poison, giving full authority to the director of Fisheries and Game with, of course, approval of my board. This allowed certain discretion on our part.