National Wildlife Disease Program Volume 1, Issue 1 October 2010

PLAGUE SURVEILLANCE UPDATE

THE NWDP—WHO ARE WE ? I NSIDE THIS ISSUE: By Dr. Thomas DeLiberto

The NWDP—Who 1 The USDA/APHIS Wildlife Ser- The program has 44 Wildlife dorabies, , tularemia, vices National Wildlife Disease Disease Biologist (WDBs) lo- bovine tuberculosis, West Nile Are We? Program (NWDP) is based on a cated across the country. WDBs virus, chronic wasting disease, Why Conduct 1 strategic premise that safeguard- conduct surveillance activities in Johne's disease, and Lyme dis- ing the health of humans, ani- all 50 states and act as Wildlife ease. WDBs work closely with Plague Sero- mals, plants and ecosystems other federal agencies as well as makes safe agricultural trade state health, agriculture, and possible and reduces losses to wildlife agencies to implement Plague Sampling 2 agricultural and natural re- these surveillance projects. Sites: sources. Active surveillance al- lows for a better understanding This plague update is the first of select wildlife diseases and Plague Serology 3 issue that the NWDP will periodi- enhances the ability to respond cally publish to provide updates Results by State: to disease outbreaks in wildlife on our sylvatic plague surveil- and domestic animals, as well as lance project. This work is a to prevent disease threats to collaborative effort with the Cen- Plague Sero- 4 humans. Sampling a for plague ters for Disease Control, and Surveillance Results: state and tribal public health, The NWDP facilitates and assists Services' first responders in wildlife, and agriculture agen- state, federal, tribal and interna- cases of emergency, as part of cies. It’s purpose is to increase Interested in Addi- 4 tional agencies, as well as pri- NWDP's Surveillance and Emer- our knowledge of the distribu- tional Plague Sur- vate cooperators, with local dis- gency Response System (SERS). tion of the disease, and its rela- veillance Data for ease monitoring and nationally- The WDBs participate in wildlife tionship to other biotic and disease surveillance and control Your State? coordinated wildlife surveillance abiotic factors. This knowledge systems. These programs focus activities that are of particular will improve our ability to predict on sample collection, information interest and concern in their plague epizootics and assist exchange, laboratory support designated regions. These dis- health professionals in prevent- and monitoring of diseases of eases include highly-pathogenic ing and treating domestic ani- avian influenza, classical swine concern to national biosecurity. mals and people. fever, swine brucellosis, pseu-

W HY CONDUCT PLAGUE SERO-SURVEILLANCE? By Dr. Thomas Gidlewski Plague has been identified as one can encounter the agent in of the most pathogenic bacterial the wild and bring it home. diseases of humans, wildlife and Plague is maintained by domestic animals. This infectious hosts and their but how it disease is caused by the bacte- is maintained in nature between rium . Fleas play clinical outbreaks is not fully the major role in transmitting understood. Mammals, such as plague but direct contact be- carnivores and scavengers that tween infected mammals can feed on susceptible rodent spe- also spread the disease. In many cies are at risk. Species suscep- cases, domestic animals such as Nobuto samples (Continued on page 2)

The original artwork on this page was created by the National Wildlife Disease Program’s Erika Kampe and Sarah Goff

Plague Surveillance Update Vol.1 Iss.1 October 2010 Page 2

P LAGUE SAMPLING SITES: 2005-2009 Map by Mark Lutman

(Why conduct plague sero-surveillance? not develop clinical disease NWDP biologists work closely Such exposure can result in the ~ Continued from page 1) following exposure to plague with other Wildlife Services development of antibodies, but they do readily develop personnel to collect samples, which indicates that plague is tibility to plague appear to be highly variable as demon- likely present within the coy- strated by the lethal effect on ote’s home range. black –footed and rela- tive resistance of . Serology results can be shared with local human and animal health officials. Once alerted to In general, members of the the presence of the disease in family, such as , moun- their area, health personnel can tain lions and domestic cats be on the look-out for patients are considered particularly exhibiting plague's flu-like susceptible to plague while the symptoms (fever, chills, swollen and wild canids, including lymph nodes, etc.), which are coyotes and wolves, tend to be often non-specific and resem- fairly resistant to plague. Be- ble other common diseases. If cause cats are susceptible to Xenopsilla cheopis—Oriental Rat . identified quickly, though, plague and may develop the Photo from CDC website plague infections can be effec- highly-contagious form of the tively treated with antibiotic disease (), antibodies. Testing blood of primarily from coyotes, taken drugs. A delay in the diagnosis, they can represent a health coyotes and other wildlife for during wildlife damage man- even for a short period, can threat to people who come in the presence of these antibod- agement activities. Coyotes are make treatment much more contact with them (e.g.,, sports- ies is a convenient and effi- often exposed to plague be- difficult or impossible resulting men, wildlife personnel & pet cient method of monitoring cause of their close association in death. owners). Generally, canids do plague activity in an area. with infected and fleas. Plague Surveillance Update Vol.1 Iss.1 October 2010 Page 3

P LAGUE SEROLOGY RESULTS BY STATE: 2005-2009

State All Species All Species All Species Coyotes Coyotes Coyotes Negative Positive % Positive Negative Positive % Positive

AK 2 0 0.0 % 2 0 0.0 % AZ 1448 30 2.0 % 979 28 2.8 % CA 27 0 0 0 % 27 0 0 0 % CO 1331 199 13.0 % 1226 193 13.6 % ID 886 33 3.6 % 401 15 3.6 % IN 10 0 0 .0 % 6 0 0.0 % KS 169 0 0 .0 % 105 0 0.0 % ME 8 0 0.0 % 4 0 0.0 % MI 45 0 0.0 % 45 0 0.0 % MN 9 0 0.0% n/a n/a n/a MO 469 0 0.0% 8 0 0.0 % MT 3532 419 10.6 % 3481 418 10.7 % ND 557 3 0.5 % 409 0 0.0 % NE 353 10 2.8 % 302 9 2.9 % NJ 3 0 0.0 % 3 0 0.0 % NM 2258 705 23.8 % 2166 688 24.1 % NV 1455 102 6.6 % 1064 96 8.3 % NY 2 0 0.0 % n/a n/a n/a OK 2079 18 0.9 % 1083 18 1.6 % OR 516 16 3.0 % 432 11 2.5 % SD 469 53 10.2 % 456 52 10.2 % TX 1134 70 5.8 % 532 68 11.3 % UT 761 33 4.2 % 138 22 13.8 % VA 15 0 0.0 % n/a n/a n/a WA 360 0 0.0 % 33 0 0.0 % WY 664 173 20.7 % 660 170 20.5 % Averages 714 72 4.9 % 590 78 5.7 % Totals 18562 1864 n/a 13562 1788 n/a Plague Surveillance Update Vol.1 Iss.1 October 2010 Page 4

P LAGUE SERO-SURVEILLANCE RESULTS: 2005-2009 Map by Mark Lutman—NWDP

County Plague Line Line Plague

I NTERESTED IN ADDITIONAL PLAGUE SURVEILLANCE DATA FOR YOUR STATE?

National Wildlife Disease Program Brandon Schmit – Wildlife Disease Biologist, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwdp/ 970.266.6079

For more information on the Wildlife Services Wildlife We will be happy to put you in touch with the wildlife dis- Disease Program in your state, please call 866-4 ease biologist in your state. Each wildlife disease biolo- USDA WS, or contact the following staff: gist works closely with state, county, city and For All-Hazard Tom DeLiberto - National Coordinator tribal entities to improve disease surveillance with Emergencies 970.266.6088 the ultimate goal of im- Involving Wildlife Tom Gidlewski – Assistant Coordinator and Plague proving and safeguarding Project Manager Call: 970.266.6363 local wildlife, livestock, or toll-free 1.877.303.6363 970.266.6350 and human health.