American Bison - IUCN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

26 American Bison: Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010
Chapter 5 Reportable or Notifiable Diseases Throughout their range, bison host numerous pathogens and parasites, many of which also occur in domestic cattle (see reviews: Berezowski 2002; Tessaro 1989; Reynolds et al. 2003). In this review, we consider only infective organisms that may negatively affect bison populations, or their conservation, either through direct pathobiological effects, or indirectly as a consequence of management interventions. Livestock diseases that restrict trade or pose a risk to human health may be “reportable” or “notifiable” under federal and provincial/state legislation. In Canada, reportable and immediately notifiable diseases are listed nationally under the authority of the Health of Animals Act and Regulations (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-3.3/, accessed 15 April 2009) and under provincial statutes and legislation. The Canadian Health of Animals Act requires owners and anyone caring for animals, or having control over animals, to immediately notify the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) when they suspect or confirm the presence of a disease prescribed in the Reportable Diseases Regulations. The CFIA reacts by either controlling or eradicating the disease based upon a programme agreed to by stakeholders (CFIA 2001). In the U.S., the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) conducts federal eradication programmes for several reportable livestock diseases and is involved in a negotiated multi-jurisdictional brucellosis management programme for bison in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) (APHIS, USDA 2007; NPS-USDOI 2000). In both countries, Federal legislation supersedes state and provincial disease control legislation. In the U.S. and Canada there are specific state and provincial regulations that require testing for, and reporting of, various diseases. These regulations may be more extensive than federal requirements, but typically include those diseases regulated by the federal animal health authorities. Much like the U.S and Canada, Mexico has federal animal disease regulations that are administered by the Secretary of Agriculture, Livestock Production, Rural Development, Fishery and Food (SAGARPA). Disease surveillance programmes and zoosanitary requirements, including disease reporting, are established by federal law to protect trade in Mexico and are administered by a decentralised branch of SAGARPA titled the National Service of Health, Safety, and Agricultural Food Quality (SENASICA, see http://www.senasica.gob.mx). SAGARPA Lead Authors: Keith Aune and C. Cormack Gates Contributors: Brett T. Elkin, Martin Hugh-Jones, Damien O. Joly, and John Nishi. also negotiates bi-lateral disease management agreements for important livestock diseases along the U.S. border, including bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, and screwworm. In addition to federal, state and provincial regulatory agencies there is an international organisation that influences animal disease reporting in North America. The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) is an intergovernmental organisation created by international agreement in 1924. In 2008 the OIE had 172 member countries. Every member country is committed to declaring the animal diseases it may detect in its territory. The OIE disseminates this information to help member countries to protect themselves from the spread of disease across international boundaries. The OIE produces sanitary codes with rules that must be observed by member countries to prevent the spread of significant diseases around the world. OIE has established Sanitary Codes for Terrestrial Animals, and the Manual for Diagnostic and Vaccine Tests for Terrestrial Animals, which may influence the international movement of bison (http:// www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_sommaire.htm). All three countries in North America are members of OIE. Depending on the nature of the disease, management of reportable diseases in captive or commercial herds in North America may involve development and application of uniform protocols to reduce disease prevalence, zoning of management areas by disease status, or imposition of procedures for disease eradication, including test and slaughter, or depopulation. Where reportable diseases are detected, federal, state or provincial legislation affects management of wild bison populations. Interventions may include limiting the geographic distribution of an infected wild population, (e.g., removals at park boundaries to reduce the risk of the disease spreading to adjacent livestock population), quarantine, treatment, or eradication of infected captive conservation breeding herds, or limiting inter-population or inter-jurisdictional transport of bison. Public perception of bison as specific, or non-specific, carriers of diseases is a potential barrier to re-establishing conservation herds, particularly in regions where conventional livestock grazing occurs. National and state/provincial governments may restrict the import/export of bison for conservation projects based on real or perceived risks of infection and transmission of reportable diseases. American Bison: Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010 27
Page 1 and 2: American Bison Status Survey and Co
Page 3 and 4: American Bison Status Survey and Co
Page 5 and 6: Table of Contents Acknowledgements
Page 7 and 8: 6.3 Demographics ..................
Page 9 and 10: 9.6 Active Management: handling, he
Page 11 and 12: This manuscript is the product of m
Page 13 and 14: ABS American Bison Society ABSG Ame
Page 15 and 16: The publication of this IUCN Americ
Page 17 and 18: and foothills. Bison have a profoun
Page 19 and 20: Chapter 1 Introduction: The Context
Page 21 and 22: composition and function, as well a
Page 23 and 24: Chapter 2 History of Bison in North
Page 25 and 26: Figure 2.1 Original ranges of plain
Page 27 and 28: Charles Alloway (Manitoba), Charles
Page 29 and 30: nomadic “Plains Indian Culture”
Page 31 and 32: Chapter 3 Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Page 33 and 34: demonstrate that Bison and Bos were
Page 35 and 36: from their original habitat near th
Page 37 and 38: Chapter 4 Genetics As a science, po
Page 39 and 40: Selection for diversity in one syst
Page 41 and 42: cross, however, the latter is more
Page 43: the conservation of the wild specie
Page 47 and 48: one) followed by its widespread dis
Page 49 and 50: cattle at similar levels to S19 (Ch
Page 51 and 52: long as 156 days post-infection. So
Page 53 and 54: and elk herds migrate across severa
Page 55 and 56: These concepts are being developed
Page 57 and 58: Chapter 6 General Biology, Ecology
Page 59 and 60: leave the herd prior to calving or
Page 61 and 62: historically dependent on a combina
Page 63 and 64: 6.2.1.2.1 Northern mixed grasslands
Page 65 and 66: woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus
Page 67 and 68: season: Wolfe and Kimball (1989) re
Page 69 and 70: table 6.4 Age-specific reproductive
Page 71 and 72: 6.3.4 Population growth rates The r
Page 73 and 74: Chapter 7 Numerical and Geographic
Page 75 and 76: Sixty-two plains bison and 11 wood
Page 77 and 78: Figure 7.4 Representation of plains
Page 79 and 80: Plate 7.3 Male plains bison sparrin
Page 81 and 82: Chapter 8 Legal Status, Policy Issu
Page 83 and 84: administrations, and the increasing
Page 85 and 86: table 8.1 Current legal status of p
Page 87 and 88: table 8.1 (continued) Country/ Stat
Page 93 and 94: 8.4 Legal and Policy Obstacles hind
Page 95 and 96:
8.5 Overcoming Obstacles to the Eco
Page 97 and 98:
indigenous peoples’ land (Dudley
Page 99 and 100:
3) Develop outreach to state and fe
Page 101 and 102:
8.5.5.3 Mexico Since the original r
Page 103 and 104:
Chapter 9 Conservation Guidelines f
Page 105 and 106:
animals are proportionately removed
Page 107 and 108:
6. Maintenance number and growth ra
Page 109 and 110:
4. health and disease All attempts
Page 111 and 112:
table 9.4 Important considerations
Page 113 and 114:
northern bison herds, managers shou
Page 115 and 116:
may not have been validated. Testin
Page 117 and 118:
2) A tendency to flee if approached
Page 119 and 120:
2. Determine the required scope of
Page 121 and 122:
Chapter 10 Guidelines for Ecologica
Page 123 and 124:
“‘Ecosystem’ means • Creati
Page 125 and 126:
10.3 the “Ecosystem Approach” f
Page 127 and 128:
anywhere without engaging stakehold
Page 129 and 130:
• Interventions (e.g., supplement
Page 131 and 132:
Agabriel, J. and Petit, M. 1996. Qu
Page 133 and 134:
Byerly, R.M., Cooper, J.R., Meltzer
Page 135 and 136:
Dragon D.C. and Rennie, R.P. 1995.
Page 137 and 138:
Gilpin, M.E. and Soulé, M.E. 1986.
Page 139 and 140:
Joern, A. 2005. Disturbance by fire
Page 141 and 142:
Matthews, S.B. 1991. An assessment
Page 143 and 144:
Possingham, H.P., Davies, I., Noble
Page 145 and 146:
Shaw, J.H. 1995. How many bison ori
Page 147 and 148:
van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1986. A Syst
Page 149 and 150:
Appendix A North American conservat
Page 151 and 152:
Plains bison (continued) State/Prov
Page 154:
INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATIO
show all

American Bison - IUCN

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?