American Bison - Buffalo Field Campaign

attempted (Nishi et al. 2002b), but failed. In 2006, after 10 years
of isolation and rigorous disease testing, BTB-infected bison
were detected in the herd.
Several constituencies rejected the FEARO (1990) panel’s
recommendation to depopulate WBNP herds. The Northern
Buffalo Management Board (NBMB) was formed to develop
a feasible eradication plan (Chisholm et al. 1998; Gates et al.
1992). The NBMB recommended further research into bison
and disease ecology before planning management actions
for the region (RAC 2001). In 1995, the Minister of Canadian
Heritage formed the Bison Research and Containment Program
(BRCP) to focus on disease containment and ecological and
traditional knowledge research (RAC 2001). The Minister then
created the Research Advisory Committee (RAC) to coordinate
research activities under the BRCP (Chisholm et al. 1998). The
RAC comprised a senior scientist appointed by Parks Canada,
representatives from the Alberta and Northwest Territories
governments, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, and
four aboriginal communities (Chisholm et al. 1998). During
the mandated five year period (1996-2001), the BRCP funded
projects to assess the prevalence and effects of the diseases
on northern bison (Joly and Messier 2001a), and to investigate
bison movements and the risk of disease transfer (Gates et
al. 2001a). The RAC produced a future research agenda and
budget for minimum research still required under the BRCP
mandate (RAC 2001), but the programme was discontinued in
2001. Many of the research needs identified by the RAC align
with the recommendations outlined in the National Recovery
Plan for Wood Bison prepared by the Wood Bison Recovery
Team (Gates et al. 2001c). There remains considerable
disagreement between federal and provincial governments
and aboriginal interests concerning a long-term solution to
the WBNP disease issue. Provincial governments support
disease eradication, including aggressive intervention to
achieve disease eradication within the national park. Parks
Canada is concerned about the conservation and biological
impacts associated with aggressive intervention. A technical
workshop was convened in 2005 to explore the feasibility
of removing diseased bison from the Greater Wood Buffalo
National Park region followed by a reintroduction of healthy
bison (Shury et al. 2006), and there was unanimous agreement
amongst participants that this option was technically feasible.
The only subsequent management action undertaken at the
time of writing was the implementation of a hunting season
for the Hay-Zama herd in 2008-2009, intended, in part, to
test disease status and to reduce the risk of infection with
BTB and brucellosis by reducing population size and limiting
range expansion towards infected populations (George
Hamilton, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, personal
communication).
36 American Bison: Status Survey and Conservation Guidelines 2010
5.4 Disease Management in Perspective
A primary consideration regarding disease management
in wild populations is determining when a disease is a
conservation problem and whether intervention is warranted
(Gilmour and Munro 1991). It can be argued that parasitism
by disease organisms is a crucial ecological and evolutionary
force in natural systems (Aguirre et al. 1995; Wobeser 2002).
Classification of a pathogen as indigenous or exotic to a host
species or ecosystem can influence whether a disease should
be managed (Aguirre and Starkey 1994; Aguirre et al. 1995;
National Park Service 2000). BTB and brucellosis are believed to
have been transmitted to bison from domestic cattle. Therefore,
management of these diseases in bison is warranted based on
their exotic origins, as well as the threat they pose to domestic
animals. However, many other pathogens have coevolved with
bison and do not warrant veterinary intervention and should be
managed in accordance with a natural system.
The most significant diseases involving bison as wildlife affect
a trinity of players (wildlife, humans, and domestic animals),
and involve a tangle of transmission routes (Fischer 2008).
Management of wildlife diseases has often been undertaken
to minimise risks to humans and domestic animals (Nishi et
al. 2002c; Wobeser 2002). Reportable disease management
for agricultural purposes is typically based on the objective
of eradicating the disease from a livestock population
(Nishi et al. 2002c). The policy and legislative framework for
eradicating reportable diseases in domestic animals is well
developed, however, when applied to wildlife, the protocols
used by agricultural agencies are usually not compatible with
conservation goals (e.g., maintaining genetic diversity, minimal
management intervention) (Nishi et al. 2002c). Increasingly, the
broader conservation community is examining wildlife disease
issues in the context of their impact on the viability of wild
populations, conservation translocation programmes, and global
biodiversity (Daszak and Cunningham 2000; Deem et al. 2001;
Wobeser 2002). Creative disease-ecology research is needed,
and an adaptive management framework is required for coping
with diseases within a conservation context (Woodruff 1999).
An evaluation of the disease management methods presently
applied to bison populations is needed and could assist
with development of novel conservation-appropriate policies
and protocols for managing the health of free-ranging bison
populations (Nishi et al. 2002c).
Two emerging policy concepts being discussed to manage
and control the transmission or distribution of disease at the
domestic/wild animal interface include regionalisation and
compartmentalisation (CFIA 2002; OIE 2008). Regionalisation
offers one means of spatially identifying where disease control
measures will occur on the land while compartmentalisation
separates the control programmes of wild and domestic animals.