Valeriia Yustyniuk, Gretel A Keller, Marc D Schwabenlander, Kristin J Bondo, Sonja A Christensen, Tiffany M Wolf
{"title":"Current Biosecurity Practices in the Handling and Sampling of Cervids: A Cross-Sectional Survey.","authors":"Valeriia Yustyniuk, Gretel A Keller, Marc D Schwabenlander, Kristin J Bondo, Sonja A Christensen, Tiffany M Wolf","doi":"10.7589/JWD-D-25-00007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Effective biosecurity practices are essential for mitigating the risks of pathogen transmission in human-wildlife interactions, yet it is unclear how infection control policies are put into action by those working with wildlife. We evaluated biosecurity practices among professionals working with cervids in the US and Canada via an electronic survey conducted between March 2024 and June 2024. The objectives were to identify pathogens of concern, describe current biosecurity protocols, evaluate the appropriateness of disinfecting practices, and explore associations between biosecurity practices and factors such as profession, regional disease status, and the nature of interactions with cervids. Survey respondents were primarily ecologists or biologists (47%), veterinarians (46%), and managers or wildlife capture professionals lacking those backgrounds (6%). Respondents identified chronic wasting disease (CWD) and SARS-CoV-2 as primary pathogens of concern, with CWD being the most frequently targeted for disinfection, even in nonendemic areas. Although most respondents indicated the use of biosecurity protocols, adherence was inconsistent, particularly in free-living settings. Professionals working with captive cervids were significantly more likely to consistently follow biosecurity protocols than those working exclusively with free-living cervids. Use of personal protective equipment was common. Veterinarians were more likely than managers lacking an ecology, biology, or veterinary background to disinfect cervid sampling equipment between individual animals. Those working in regions where CWD was endemic were more likely to have formal biosecurity policies and cleaning and disinfection protocols compared with those in nonendemic areas. Our study also identified biosecurity protocol gaps, with some respondents using ineffective disinfectants or suboptimal concentrations against reported pathogens of concern. These findings highlight the need for standardized, evidence-based guidelines when developing and implementing cervid biosecurity protocols, particularly regarding effective disinfectant use.</p>","PeriodicalId":17602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wildlife Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7589/JWD-D-25-00007","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Effective biosecurity practices are essential for mitigating the risks of pathogen transmission in human-wildlife interactions, yet it is unclear how infection control policies are put into action by those working with wildlife. We evaluated biosecurity practices among professionals working with cervids in the US and Canada via an electronic survey conducted between March 2024 and June 2024. The objectives were to identify pathogens of concern, describe current biosecurity protocols, evaluate the appropriateness of disinfecting practices, and explore associations between biosecurity practices and factors such as profession, regional disease status, and the nature of interactions with cervids. Survey respondents were primarily ecologists or biologists (47%), veterinarians (46%), and managers or wildlife capture professionals lacking those backgrounds (6%). Respondents identified chronic wasting disease (CWD) and SARS-CoV-2 as primary pathogens of concern, with CWD being the most frequently targeted for disinfection, even in nonendemic areas. Although most respondents indicated the use of biosecurity protocols, adherence was inconsistent, particularly in free-living settings. Professionals working with captive cervids were significantly more likely to consistently follow biosecurity protocols than those working exclusively with free-living cervids. Use of personal protective equipment was common. Veterinarians were more likely than managers lacking an ecology, biology, or veterinary background to disinfect cervid sampling equipment between individual animals. Those working in regions where CWD was endemic were more likely to have formal biosecurity policies and cleaning and disinfection protocols compared with those in nonendemic areas. Our study also identified biosecurity protocol gaps, with some respondents using ineffective disinfectants or suboptimal concentrations against reported pathogens of concern. These findings highlight the need for standardized, evidence-based guidelines when developing and implementing cervid biosecurity protocols, particularly regarding effective disinfectant use.
期刊介绍:
The JWD publishes reports of wildlife disease investigations, research papers, brief research notes, case and epizootic reports, review articles, and book reviews. The JWD publishes the results of original research and observations dealing with all aspects of infectious, parasitic, toxic, nutritional, physiologic, developmental and neoplastic diseases, environmental contamination, and other factors impinging on the health and survival of free-living or occasionally captive populations of wild animals, including fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Papers on zoonoses involving wildlife and on chemical immobilization of wild animals are also published. Manuscripts dealing with surveys and case reports may be published in the Journal provided that they contain significant new information or have significance for better understanding health and disease in wild populations. Authors are encouraged to address the wildlife management implications of their studies, where appropriate.