DOCSLIB.ORG

Strategy Report First Cycle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strategy Report First Cycle 1 2 CALLISTO research project is funded by the European Union, 7th Framework Programme. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 OVERVIEW OF THE CALLISTO PROJECT FIRST CYCLE 8 • MEMBERS OF CALLISTO 9 - MEMBERS OF EAG I 9 - MEMBERS OF EAG II 9 - MEMBERS OF EAG III 10 - MEMBERS OF EAG IV 10 - MEMBERS OF EAG V 11 - MEMBERS OF EAG VI 11 - MEMBERS OF EAG VII 11 1. COMPANION ANIMALS: DEFINITIONS AND DEMOGRAPHICS 12 • 1.1 DEFINITION OF COMPANION ANIMALS AND THE SCOPE OF CALLISTO 12 • 1.2 SMALL COMPANION ANIMALS IN EUROPE 13 • 1.3 NEW COMPANION ANIMALS 14 • 1.4 HORSES 15 • 1.5 THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COMPANION ANIMAL SECTOR 16 IN EUROPE 2. SOCIOLOGICAL AND HUMAN WELFARE ASPECTS OF KEEPING 21 COMPANION ANIMALS • 2.1 THE SOCIAL AND SOCIETAL REASONS FOR KEEPING COMPANION 21 ANIMALS AND THE BENEFIT TO HUMAN HEALTH AND WELLBEING THAT COMPANION ANIMALS CAN BRING • 2.2 THE SOCIETAL VALUE OF PETS BY HUMAN AGE GROUP 24 - 2.2.1 BENEFITS OF PET KEEPING FOR CHILDREN 24 - 2.2.2 BENEFITS OF PET KEEPING FOR ADOLESCENTS 25 - 2.2.3 BENEFITS OF PET KEEPING FOR ADULTS 26 - 2.2.4 BENEFITS OF PET KEEPING FOR THE ELDERLY 27 • 2.3 ZOONOTIC DISEASE ASPECTS RELEVANT FOR HUMAN AND ANIMAL 27 WELFARE • 2.4 INFORMATION ALREADY AVAILABLE TO DOG, CAT AND HORSE 29 OWNERS ON RISK OF ZOONOSES 3. POLICY ACTIONS RELATED TO SPREAD OF ZOONOSES 34 • 3.1 INTRODUCTION 34 • 3.2 METHODS USED FOR DATA COLLECTION 35 • 3.3 GENERAL, NON-DISEASE SPECIFIC POLICY ACTIONS RELATED TO THE 36 SPREAD OF DISEASES THROUGH COMPANION ANIMALS • 3.4 POLICY ACTIONS RELATED TO THE SPREAD OF PARASITIC DISEASES 38 THROUGH COMPANION ANIMALS TO PEOPLE AND FOOD PRODUCING ANIMALS 4 39 • 3.5 POLICY ACTIONS RELATED TO THE SPREAD OF BACTERIAL DISEASES THROUGH COMPANION ANIMALS TO PEOPLE AND FOOD PRODUCING ANIMALS 40 • 3.6 POLICY ACTIONS RELATED TO THE SPREAD OF VIRAL DISEASES THROUGH COMPANION ANIMALS TO PEOPLE AND FOOD PRODUCING ANIMALS 40 • 3.7 COMPLIANCE WITH POLICY ACTIONS RELATED TO THE SPREAD OF DISEASES THROUGH COMPANION ANIMALS TO PEOPLE AND FOOD PRODUCING ANIMALS 41 4. INTRODUCTION TO SPECIFIC ZOONOTIC INFECTIONS 43 5. VIRAL INFECTIONS 43 • 5.1 APPROACH TO IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT VIRAL ZOONOSES 47 • 5.2 VIRUSES OF PRIMARY CONCERN TO HUMAN HEALTH 47 - 5.2.1 RABIES VIRUS 48 - 5.2.2 WEST NILE VIRUS 50 - 5.2.3 TICK-BORNE ENCEPHALITIS VIRUS 52 - 5.2.4 CRIMEAN-CONGO HAEMORRHAGIC FEVER VIRUS 53 - 5.2.5 HANTAVIRUSES (INCLUDING DOBRAVA-BELGRADE VIRUS) 55 - 5.2.6 TAHYNA VIRUS 56 - 5.2.7 AICHI VIRUS 58 - 5.2.8 EUROPEAN BAT LYSSAVIRUS 59 - 5.2.9 HEPATITIS E VIRUS 62 - 5.2.10 COWPOX VIRUS 64 - 5.2.11 G5 ROTAVIRUS 66 - 5.2.12 INFLUENZA A VIRUS 68 - 5.2.13 LYMPHOCYTIC CHORIOMENINGITIS VIRUS 70 • 5.3 VIRUSES OF PRIMARY CONCERN TO FOOD ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION 70 - 5.3.1 BLUETONGUEVIRUS 72 - 5.3.2 AFRICAN SWINE FEVER VIRUS 73 - 5.3.3 FOOT-AND-MOUTH-DISEASE VIRUS 75 - 5.3.4 RABBIT HAEMORRHAGIC DISEASE VIRUS 76 - 5.3.5 LUMPY SKIN DISEASE VIRUS 77 • 5.4 VIRUSES OF PRIMARY CONCERN TO FOOD ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION (FISH) 77 - 5.4.1 CYPRINID HERPESVIRUS 3 (KOI HERPESVIRUS) 79 - 5.4.2 VIRAL HAEMORRHAGIC SEPTICAEMIA VIRUS 80 - 5.4.3 INFECTIOUS PANCREATIC NECROSIS VIRUS 82 6. BACTERIAL INFECTIONS 82 • 6.1 BARTONELLA SPP. (CAT SCRATCH DISEASE) 86 • 6.2 BITE INFECTIONS 88 • 6.3 CAMPYLOBACTER SPP. (CAMPYLOBACTERIOSIS) 92 • 6.4 CHLAMYDOPHILA PSITTACI (PSITTACOSIS) 94 • 6.5 CLOSTRIDIUM DIFFICILE 5 • 6.6 COXIELLA BURNETII (Q FEVER) 98 • 6.7 DERMATOPHYTES (DERMATOPHYTOSIS/‘RINGWORM’) 102 • 6.8 EXTENDED-SPECTRUM Β-LACTAMASE (ESBL) PRODUCING BACTERIA 105 • 6.9 LEPTOSPIRA SPP. (LEPTOSPIROSIS) 109 • 6.10 METHICILLIN-RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS (MRSA) 115 • 6.11 METHICILLIN-RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS PSEUDINTERMEDIUS 120 (MRSP) • 6.12 SALMONELLA SPP. (SALMONELLOSIS) 124 7. PARASITIC INFECTIONS 129 • 7.1 CYSTIC AND ALVEOLAR ECHINOCOCCOSIS 129 • 7.2 DIROFILARIOSIS 134 • 7.3 TOXOCARA SPP. INFECTION 136 • 7.4 HOOKWORMS 139 • 7.5 TOXOPLASMOSIS 142 • 7.6 LEISHMANIOSIS 145 • 7.7 NEOSPOROSIS 149 • 7.8 GIARDIOSIS 152 8. RISK ANALYSIS AND EPIDEMIOLOGY 155 • 8.1 INTRODUCTION TO RISK ANALYSIS AND DISEASE MODELLING 155 - 8.1.1 STATE TRANSITION MODELS 158 - 8.1.2 SCENARIO TREE 161 • 8.2 EPIDEMIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE 167 PARADIGMATIC DISEASES SELECTED IN CHAPTERS 5–7 - 8.2.1 DISEASES TRANSMITTED BY DIRECT CONTACT 170 - 8.2.2 DISEASES TRANSMITTED BY VECTORS 170 • 8.3 REVIEW OF EXISTING PUBLISHED RISK ASSESSMENTS CONCERNING 175 THE TRANSMISSION OF DISEASES FROM COMPANION ANIMALS TO HUMANS OR FARMED ANIMALS - 8.3.1 IMPORT RISK ASSESSMENTS 175 - 8.3.3 RISK ASSESSMENTS CONCERNING THE ‘PARADIGMATIC DISEASES’ 178 - 8.3.4 TYPE OF INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR THE SPECIFIC RISK ASSESSMENT 179 OF EACH PARADIGMATIC DISEASE 9. CALLISTO WEB SITE 185 • 9.1 INTRODUCTION 185 • 9.2 MAIN SECTIONS AND FUNCTIONING 186 • 9.3 DATA CONCERNING WEBSITE VISITS 187 • 9.4 IMPROVEMENTS AND FORTHCOMING ACTIONS 188 GLOSSARY 190 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document represents the first annual report of the EU Framework 7-funded project entitled CALLISTO (Companion Animal multisectoriaL interprofessionaL and interdisciplinary Strategic Think tank On zoonoses), which investigates zoonotic infectious diseases transmitted between companion animals and humans and food producing animals. The specific aim of the first year of the project was to develop a detailed overview of the role of companion animals as a source of infectious diseases for man and farmed animals, including available information on disease incidence and geographical distribution in these host categories. The present report is the compilation of the work of seven Expert Working Groups under five Work Packages during the calendar year 2012. Companion animals are any domesticated, domestic-bred or wild- caught animals, permanently living in a community and kept by people for company, enjoyment, work (e.g. support for blind or deaf people, police or military dogs) or psychological support – including, but not limited to dogs, cats, horses, rabbits, ferrets, guinea pigs, reptiles, birds and ornamental fish. The report describes the very large and growing number of companion animals estimated to be kept within EU countries and the major economic contribution made by the associated industry (e.g. breeding, sales, pet food, insurance, pharmaceutical and veterinary support). For example, there are an estimated 64 million cats and 60 million dogs in EU countries and the estimated annual spend on petcare products alone is €25.7 billion. It is also recognized that there are great challenges to obtaining accurrate data of this type. Companion animals make crucial contributions to human society. In addition to working roles (e.g. dogs for visually or hearing impaired 7 people), companion animals afford profound benefit in areas as diverse as human healthcare and childhood development. The positive influence of owning a companion animal has further benefit by reducing human healthcare spend. Despite these unquestionable benefits, there are risks that human owners may contract zoonotic infectious diseases directly or indirectly from companion animal species. Moreover, as traditional livestock species now increasingly serve a role as companions, there are disease transmission risks from these animals to farmed animals of the same species. This report systematically defines the major bacterial, viral and parasitic zoonoses that fall into these categories and identifies the risks to the human and farmed animal populations. The current availability of surveillance systems for these infections and of governmental awareness and interest in these diseases is also explored. With few exceptions (e.g. canine rabies virus infection) there is little serious attempt to monitor the prevalence, emergence or re-emergence of zoonotic pathogens arising from companion animal species. With the exception of the EU Pet Travel scheme (again focussed on canine rabies) there is little legislative awareness of the scale or significance of companion animal zoonoses. The monitoring and control of companion animal zoonoses is a prime example of where a ‘One Health’ (joint human and veterinary medical and public health) approach is essential. In Years 2 and 3 of the CALLISTO project gaps in knowledge will be identified, and risks will be modelled in order to produce clear recommendations to stakeholders. 8 OVERVIEW OF THE CALLISTO PROJECT FIRST CYCLE The aim of the first cycle of CALLISTO was to review the current knowledge of the role of companion animals as a source of infectious diseases in man and farmed animals in the EU. Accordingly, the first part of this cycle was used to collect and review existing data within each area represented by the seven expert advisory groups (EAG I to EAG VII). The work done by the seven EAGs has been gathered and merged into the present cross-EAG report. The report was planned during the first cycle of EAG meetings and cross-EAG meetings held in January 2012 in Brussels. Subsequently the various EAGs arranged ad hoc meetings and teleconferences for the implementation of the working plan, and a cross-EAG preparatory report was agreed by the partners to delineate the topics and scopes to be covered by each EAG, the results expected from each EAG, and the format of the report. This final synthesis report from the first year of the project follows from a CALLISTO conference held in Brussels in October 2012. EAG I represents the user community. This group gathered data describing the composition of companion animal populations in Europe as well as the socioeconomic significance of companion animals. Examples of user communities and animal health organizations in Europe were also listed. EAG II deals with policy actions and has conducted an e-mail questionnaire survey asking for actions aiming at the prevention of the spread of diseases by companion animals to people and food producing animals.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RESEARCH ARTICLE Anti-Glioma Effect of Pseudosynanceia
    DOI:10.31557/APJCP.2021.22.7.2295 Effect of Pseudosynanceia Melanostigma Venom on Glioblastoma Cells RESEARCH ARTICLE Editorial Process: Submission:02/14/2021 Acceptance:07/15/2021 Anti-Glioma Effect of Pseudosynanceia Melanostigma Venom on Isolated Mitochondria from Glioblastoma Cells Maral Ramezani, Fatemeh Samiei, Jalal Pourahmad* Abstract Background: Glioblastoma is the most common primary malignant tumor of the central nervous system that occurs in the spinal cord or brain. Pseudosynanceia Melanostigma is a venomous stonefish in the Persian Gulf, which our knowledge about is little. This study’s goal is to investigate the toxicity of stonefish crude venom on mitochondria isolated from U87 cells. Methods: In the first stage, we extracted venom stonefish and then isolated mitochondria have exposed to different concentrations of venom. Finally, mitochondrial toxicity parameters (Succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) activity, Reactive oxygen species (ROS), cytochrome c release, Mitochondrial Membrane Potential (MMP), and mitochondrial swelling) have evaluated. Results: To determine mitochondrial parameters, we used 115, 230, and 460 µg/ml concentrations. The results of our study show that the venom of stonefish selectively increases upstream parameters of apoptosis such as mitochondrial swelling, cytochrome c release, MMP collapse and ROS. Conclusion: This study suggests that Pseudosynanceia Melanostigma crude venom has selectively caused toxicity by increasing active mitochondrial oxygen radicals. This venom could potentially be a candidate for the treatment of glioblastoma. Keywords: Mitochondria- glioblastoma- fish venoms- cell line- tumor- toxicity-Persian Gulf Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 22 (7), 2295-2302 Introduction freshwater or saltwater. Marine animals most commonly used for animals live in saltwater, i.e. in oceans, seas, Glioblastoma multiform is the most common group of etc.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Wolf Attacks - Wikipedia
    List of wolf attacks - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks List of wolf attacks This is a list of significant wolf attacks worldwide, by century, in reverse chronological order. Contents 2010s 2000s 1900s 1800s 1700s See also References Bibliography 2010s 1 von 28 14.03.2018, 14:46 List of wolf attacks - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks Type of Victim(s) Age Gender Date Location Details Source(s) attack A wolf attacked the woman in the yard when she was busy with the household. First it bit her right arm and then tried to snap her throat .A Omyt Village, Zarechni bucket which she used to protect Lydia Vladimirovna 70 ♀ January 19, 2018 Rabid District, Rivne Region, her throat saved her life as the [1][2] Ukraine rabid animal furiously ripped the bucket. A Neighbor shot the wolf which was tested rabid. The attacked lady got the necessary medical treatments. 2-3 wolves strayed through a small village. Within 10 hours starting at 9 p.m.one of them attacked and hurt 4 people. Lina Zaporozhets Anna Lushchik, Vladimir was saved by her laptop. When the A Village, Koropsky Kiryanov , Lyubov wolf bit into it, she could escape 63, 59, 53, 14 ♀/♂/♂/♀ January 4, 2018 Unprovoked District, Chernihiv [3][4] Gerashchenko, Lina through the door of her yard.The Region Ukraine. Zaporozhets injured were treated in the Koropsky Central District Hospital. One of the wolves was shot in the middle of the village and sent to rabies examination. At intervals of 40 minutes a wolf attacked two men.
    [Show full text]
  • Spider Bites
    Infectious Disease Epidemiology Section Office of Public Health, Louisiana Dept of Health & Hospitals 800-256-2748 (24 hr number) www.infectiousdisease.dhh.louisiana.gov SPIDER BITES Revised 6/13/2007 Epidemiology There are over 3,000 species of spiders native to the United States. Due to fragility or inadequate length of fangs, only a limited number of species are capable of inflicting noticeable wounds on human beings, although several small species of spiders are able to bite humans, but with little or no demonstrable effect. The final determination of etiology of 80% of suspected spider bites in the U.S. is, in fact, an alternate diagnosis. Therefore the perceived risk of spider bites far exceeds actual risk. Tick bites, chemical burns, lesions from poison ivy or oak, cutaneous anthrax, diabetic ulcer, erythema migrans from Lyme disease, erythema from Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, sporotrichosis, Staphylococcus infections, Stephens Johnson syndrome, syphilitic chancre, thromboembolic effects of Leishmaniasis, toxic epidermal necrolyis, shingles, early chicken pox lesions, bites from other arthropods and idiopathic dermal necrosis have all been misdiagnosed as spider bites. Almost all bites from spiders are inflicted by the spider in self defense, when a human inadvertently upsets or invades the spider’s space. Of spiders in the United States capable of biting, only a few are considered dangerous to human beings. Bites from the following species of spiders can result in serious sequelae: Louisiana Office of Public Health – Infectious Disease Epidemiology Section Page 1 of 14 The Brown Recluse: Loxosceles reclusa Photo Courtesy of the Texas Department of State Health Services The most common species associated with medically important spider bites: • Physical characteristics o Length: Approximately 1 inch o Appearance: A violin shaped mark can be visualized on the dorsum (top).
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Bites
    Updated 12/16/14/ INDEX ANIMAL BITES 3 BATS AND RABIES 6 CLASSROOM PETS- SALMONELLA 9 BED BUGS 11 HEAD LICE 13 SCABIES 15 WEST NILE VIRUS 17 APPENDICES 19 APPENDIX A: IMPORTANT CONTACT NUMBERS APPENDIX B: REPORTABLE DISEASE LIST APPENDIX C: OTHER INFECTIOUS DISEASES 2 Updated 1/12/15 Return to Index Animal Bites Background: Most wild animals tend to avoid humans, but they can bite if they feel threatened, are protecting their young or territory, are injured or ill, or if people attempt to approach or feed them. Although bites by wild animals can be more dangerous, bites by domestic animals are far more common. Animals’ saliva can be heavily populated with harmful bacteria and secondary infections of wounds often occur. In addition, animals can transmit zoonotic infections such as rabies (See: Bats and Rabies for more Rabies Information), tetanus, hantavirus, etc. Children are more likely to be bitten by animals and can sometimes sustain severe injuries because of their love of animals and inherent curiosity. In a school setting, bites most frequently involve classroom pets; however, bites can also occur from stray pets or wild animals on campus, especially bats, or an animal being brought to school by a student. Common Classroom Pets Rodents (hamsters, rats, gerbils, mice) Reptiles (lizards, snakes, turtles) Amphibians (frogs, toads) Rabbits Fish None of these caged animals pose any rabies risk. The likelihood of a cat or a dog being infected with rabies in Maricopa County is low- the last known rabid dog was documented in 1978. However, if any animal is displaying the possible neurological signs of Rabies (See: Signs and Symptoms) it’s important to call the MCDPH 24/7 Rabies Hotline (602 747-7111) to receive a risk assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 3 Bites and Stings
    First Aid in Common and Environmental Emergencies UNIT 3 BITES AND STINGS Structure 3.0 Introduction 3.1 Objectives 3.2 Bites and Stings 3.2.1 Definition, Causes, Types and Recognition of Bites and Stings 3.2.2 Assessment of the Victim and General First Aid 3.3 Various Bites/Stings 3.3.1 Scorpion Bite and Spider Bite 3.3.2 Snake Bite 3.3.3 Insect Bite 3.3.4 Animal Bites (Dog Bite/Monkey Bites) 3.3.5 Human Bites 3.4 Let Us Sum Up 3.5 Keywords 3.6 Answers to Check Your Progress 3.7 References and Further Readings 3.0 INTRODUCTION Bites and stings are commonly seen in the rural and remote areas. Nowadays, however, they can occur in urban areas also. Lakhs of people every year are bitten or stung by someone or something. These emergencies include bites and stings due to various reasons. These bites or stings need to be identified and treated early as they affect some part or the whole of the body which can cause mild, moderate or severe reaction and can even be life-threatening. Most are not medical emergencies but however, treatment is usually required if there is bleeding, wounds or infection. All bites and stings are not same. Different First Aid treatment and care is needed depending on the type of insect or animal that has caused the bite. Some species are more dangerous and cause more harm compared to others. Hence, in this unit we shall discuss the different types of bites and stings, causes, recognition and first aid in these situations.
    [Show full text]
  • WHO Guidance on Management of Snakebites
    GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SNAKEBITES 2nd Edition GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF SNAKEBITES 2nd Edition 1. 2. 3. 4. ISBN 978-92-9022- © World Health Organization 2016 2nd Edition All rights reserved. Requests for publications, or for permission to reproduce or translate WHO publications, whether for sale or for noncommercial distribution, can be obtained from Publishing and Sales, World Health Organization, Regional Office for South-East Asia, Indraprastha Estate, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110 002, India (fax: +91-11-23370197; e-mail: publications@ searo.who.int). The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader. In no event shall the World Health Organization be liable for damages arising from its use.
    [Show full text]
  • Lena Winslow Elementary Welcomes New Principal by Tony Carton Year
    1 1 • Wednesday, August 8, 2018 - Shopper’s Guide Saving Dollars Makes Cents! Serving the communities in Stephenson County Are You Paying Too Much for Auto Insurance? Check our website today for an online quote www.radersinsurance.com CMYK Version Since 1896 ROCKFORDMUTUAL INSURANCE C O MPANY SM Putting Lives Back Together PMS Version 815-369-4225 240 W. Main St., Suite A, Lena, IL 61048Since 1896 ROCKFORDMUTUAL www.radersinsurance.com INSURANCE C O MPAN286360Y Shopper’s Guide Putting Lives Back Together SM VOL. 80 • NO. 32 YOUR FREE HOMETOWN NEWSPAPER WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2018 Lena Winslow Elementary welcomes new principal By Tony Carton year. I think there are a lot of great EDITOR programs already underway here When the 2018-19 school year at Lena Winslow and I want to see begins, students attending Le- those programs and projects continue na-Winslow Elementary School will and grow.” have a new principal. Ann DeZell She said attaching names to faces is selected to lead the school, taking is among her first challenges as prin- over for Mary Gerbode who, after cipal. nearly 40 years of service with the “I think in a school this size, get- district, is retiring. ting to know everybody and learning “I am excited to be joining the everybody’s name is going to be a Lena-Winslow School District, challenge,” she said. “And obviously, and look forward to meeting all of it doesn’t matter what school you’re the students, parents, and commu- in or where you go, there’s always nity members who make Lena an discipline.
    [Show full text]
  • Violent Incidents Between Humans and Orcas in Captivity
    Violent incidents between humans and orcas in captivity Several accounts of violent incidents with humans have appeared in books and news clips, with little information on the dates or details of those incidents. Other descriptions have made headlines, and some were captured on video tape. There are also anecdotal reports of incidents that were never officially documented. NO. DATE AQUARIUM WHALEs INCIDENT SOURCE early years New York When water level was lowered for pool cleaning, young female Lupa sent Edward R. Riciuti, , New #1 1968 Lupa York, Walker & Co., 1973, Aquarium, USA trainers scrambling from the pool, snapping her jaws threatening. pp. 227-228. Edward R. Riciuti, Killers of the Sea, New York, Young male Cuddles became so increasingly aggressive, having a hold of at Walker & Co., 1973, pp. Flamingo Park, least two trainers, that keepers had to clean the pool from the protection of a 227-228; Reading #2 1969-1970 Cuddles England shark cage. Cuddles also dragged keeper Don Robinson into the pool when he Eagle, August 15, was at Dudley Zoo but that was possibly a PR stunt. 1971; Doug Cartlidge, personal communication, March 2010. Karen Pryor writes, "I have since heard... of at least one killer whale which Karen Pryor, Lads Before the Wind, New York, #3 1970s unknown unknown launched an unprovoked attack on a favorite trainer, in normal circumstances, Harper & Row, 1976, p. savaged him very badly, and nearly killed him." 220. Vancouver Trainer Doug Pemberton described young female Skana as the dominant Cranky killer whales put trainers through their #4 1970's Aquarium, Skana animal in the pool.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Reported Animal Bites, 2019 Allegheny County, PA
    Summary of Reported Animal Bites, 2019 Allegheny County, PA Prepared by S. Grace Hutko, BS Graduate School of Public Health University of Pittsburgh Kristen Mertz, MD, MPH Infectious Disease Epidemiology Program Allegheny County Health Department L. Renee Miller, BS, BSN, RN Immunization Program Allegheny County Health Department February 2021 Introduction Rabies, a viral zoonotic disease that is nearly always fatal, is a significant global public health concern.1 Worldwide, rabies causes tens of thousands of deaths every year, with dog bites responsible for 99% of human cases.2 In the United States, however, most rabies is found in wild animals, such as bats and raccoons, and there are only one or two human cases per year. In Pennsylvania, there have not been any cases of human rabies since 1984.1 The low incidence of human rabies in the US is attributed to a robust public health surveillance and testing system, widespread availability of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), and rabies vaccination for pets.3 In Pennsylvania, all healthcare providers are required by law to report animal bites.4 In the event a domestic animal bites a human, the animal is placed on in-home quarantine, usually for a period of ten days, and monitored for signs of rabies. If the animal is already deceased, the owner is asked to submit the animal for testing. If the animal is unavailable for observation or testing, or tests positive for rabies, the victim is directed to seek medical care to receive PEP. PEP includes rabies immune globulin given on day 0 and rabies vaccine given on days 0, 3, 7, and 14 after being evaluated by a healthcare provider.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Bites
    Who is in charge when an animal Other Biting Animals: All biting animals that bites a person? are not categorized as dogs, cats, or domestic Animal Bites ferrets, free-roaming high-risk, or low-risk • All cities and counties in Texas must must either be euthanized and tested or What should you do if an designate someone to handle animal bite quarantined or suitably confined as deemed appropriate by the LRCA for a 30-day animal bites you? cases. This person is called the "Local Rabies Control Authority" (LRCA). observation period. Rabies is a viral disease that • The LRCA is responsible for investigating What is quarantine? affects warm-blooded animal bites, ensuring proper animals (such as a dog, management of biting animals, and Quarantine means placing the animal in a cat, skunk, fox, raccoon, bat, enforcing state and local rabies laws. facility that provides: etc.). The virus is spread when saliva containing 1. absolute security (no escape possible); rabies virus is introduced into an opening in the What happens to the animal that 2. no contact with other animals or people skin, usually by the bite (or possibly scratch) of bites a person? except for contact necessary for its care; and a rabid animal. You can also get rabies if the saliva from a rabid animal contacts your mucous Dogs, Cats, and Ferrets (Domestic): 3. observation twice daily by a qualified person. Regardless of vaccination status, the membranes or any open wounds. Quarantine must be in a quarantine facility dog, cat, or ferret must be quarantined or licensed by the Texas Department of State If a bite occurs, the following precautions should euthanized (humanely killed).
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Pacific Octopus (Enteroctopus Dofleini) Care Manual
    Giant Pacific Octopus Insert Photo within this space (Enteroctopus dofleini) Care Manual CREATED BY AZA Aquatic Invertebrate Taxonomic Advisory Group IN ASSOCIATION WITH AZA Animal Welfare Committee Giant Pacific Octopus (Enteroctopus dofleini) Care Manual Giant Pacific Octopus (Enteroctopus dofleini) Care Manual Published by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in association with the AZA Animal Welfare Committee Formal Citation: AZA Aquatic Invertebrate Taxon Advisory Group (AITAG) (2014). Giant Pacific Octopus (Enteroctopus dofleini) Care Manual. Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Silver Spring, MD. Original Completion Date: September 2014 Dedication: This work is dedicated to the memory of Roland C. Anderson, who passed away suddenly before its completion. No one person is more responsible for advancing and elevating the state of husbandry of this species, and we hope his lifelong body of work will inspire the next generation of aquarists towards the same ideals. Authors and Significant Contributors: Barrett L. Christie, The Dallas Zoo and Children’s Aquarium at Fair Park, AITAG Steering Committee Alan Peters, Smithsonian Institution, National Zoological Park, AITAG Steering Committee Gregory J. Barord, City University of New York, AITAG Advisor Mark J. Rehling, Cleveland Metroparks Zoo Roland C. Anderson, PhD Reviewers: Mike Brittsan, Columbus Zoo and Aquarium Paula Carlson, Dallas World Aquarium Marie Collins, Sea Life Aquarium Carlsbad David DeNardo, New York Aquarium Joshua Frey Sr., Downtown Aquarium Houston Jay Hemdal, Toledo
    [Show full text]
  • Coyote Attacks on Humans, 1970-2015
    Coyote Attacks on Humans, 1970-2015 Rex O. Baker California Polytechnic State University, Pomona, California, (retired), Corona, California Robert M. Timm Hopland Research & Extension Center, University of California (retired), Hopland, California ABSTRACT: Beginning with the developing pattern of urban and suburban coyotes attacking humans in southern California in the late 1970s, we have gathered information on such incidents in an effort to better understand the causes of such changes in coyote behavior, as well as to develop strategies that can reduce the incidence of such attacks. Here, we update information from our knowledge of conflicts between humans and coyotes occurring largely in urban and suburban environments in the United States and Canada during the past 30 years. This problem emerged in states beyond California and in Canadian provinces in the 1990s, and it appears to be growing. We have documented 367 attacks on humans by coyotes from 1977 through 2015, of which 165 occurred in California. Of 348 total victims of coyote attack, 209 (60%) were adults, and 139 (40%) were children (age ≤10 years). Children (especially toddlers) are at greater risk of serious injury. Attacks demonstrate a seasonal pattern, with more occurring during the coyote breeding and pup-rearing season (March through August) than September through February. We reiterate management recommendations that, when enacted, have been demonstrated to effectively reduce risk of coyote attack in urban and suburban environments, and we note limitations of non-injurious hazing programs. We note an apparent growing incidence of coyote attack on pets, an issue that we believe will drive coyote management policy at the local and state levels.
    [Show full text]