Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Milton Friend

Publications and source records attributed to Milton Friend.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2015

Information resources

During recent decades, natural resources agency personnel and others involved with the management and stewardship of wildlife have experienced an increasing need to access information and obtain technical assistance for addressing a diverse array of wildlife disease issues. This Chapter provides a broad overview of selected sources for obtaining supplemental information and technical assistance for addressing wildlife disease issues in North America. Specifically, examples of existing major wildlife disease programs focusing on free-ranging wildlife populations are highlighted; training opportunities for enhancing within-agency wildlife disease response are identified; a selected reading list of wildlife disease references is provided; and selected Web sites providing timely information on wildlife disease are highlighted. No attempt is made to detail all the North American programs and capabilities that address disease in free-ranging wildlife populations. Instead, this Chapter is focused on enhancing awareness of the types of capabilities that exist as potential sources for assistance and collaboration between wildlife conservation agency personnel and others in addressing wildlife disease issues. A wide variety of entities across North America are involved in wildlife disease investigations; however, the formal assembly of multidimensional programs that primarily address disease for the benefit of free-ranging wildlife is rather limited. The Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS), the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC), and the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative (CWHC) are selected examples. These programs are highlighted because of the scope of their capabilities and long-term involvement in assisting State and Federal natural resource agencies combat wildlife disease. A variety of other sources for possible assistance in addressing wildlife disease issues exists throughout North America and globally. It is prudent for wildlife conservation field biologists, managers, and administrators to be aware of such local resources. Ideally, awareness and knowledge of the types of assistance those programs can provide should be obtained prior to disease crisis events since appropriate, timely intervention often is required to minimize wildlife losses from disease and prevent the establishment of new infectious diseases within wildlife populations and geographic areas. Increasing recognition of the substantial number of infectious diseases being transferred between wildlife, domestic animals, and humans has led to increased collaborative investigations between wildlife, domestic, and human health programs. That collaboration has led to a heightened focus on wildlife disease within some public health and agriculture agencies. For purposes of this Chapter, wildlife disease is narrowly defined as those diseases (infectious and noninfectious) causing morbidity and mortality in free-ranging wildlife populations. Therefore, there is no focus on the numerous fish disease or environmental contaminant programs that exist on behalf of North American fauna.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2015

Introduction

This is the third iteration of the National Wildlife Health Center's (NWHC) field guide developed primarily to assist field managers and biologists address diseases they encounter. By itself, the first iteration, “Field Guide of Wildlife Diseases: General Field Procedures and Diseases of Migratory Birds,” was simply another addition to an increasing array of North American field guides and other publications focusing on disease in free-ranging wildlife populations. Collectively, those publications were reflecting the ongoing transition in the convergence of wildlife management and wildlife disease as foundational components within the structure of wildlife conservation as a social enterprise serving the stewardship of our wildlife resources. For context, it is useful to consider those publications relative to a timeline of milestones involving the evolution of wildlife conservation in North America.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2014

Why bother about wildlife disease?

In most developed countries, the maintenance of the numbers of wildlife 1 is vested in the natural resource agencies of those countries. During earlier times, game species were the primary focus of natural resource agencies 2,3 however, current wildlife conservation continues to transition towards a more holistic focus on biodiversity 4 and environmental health 5,6 . Nevertheless, that transition lags behind in addressing wildlife disease in “…the struggle for existence between different forms of life…”. 7 Thus, the primary objective of this presentation is to provide a pragmatic assessment of wildlife disease that is irrespective of one’s orientation towards wildlife conservation. A secondary objective is to highlight the changing role of disease over time as a wildlife conservation factor. That transition is relevant to the insights provided for current and future efforts focused on sustaining global biodiversity and desired levels of wildlife populations in nature.

Circular↗
USGS2012

Transformation through time: How wildlife disease became a focus of conservation

When I began my career as an assistant waterfowl biologist in 1956, wildlife disease was not a major concern for conservation agencies. Some states— such as California, Michigan, New York, Wyoming, and Colorado— had small internal wildlife disease programs to investigate wildlife mortality events, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had a program focused on migratory birds.

The Wildlife Professional↗
USGS2008

Biological and societal dimensions of lead poisoning in birds in the USA

The ingestion of spent lead shot was known to cause mortality in wild waterfowl in the US a century before the implementation of nontoxic shot regulations began in 1972. The biological foundation for this transition was strongly supported by both field observations and structured scientific investigations. Despite the overwhelming evidence, various societal factors forestalled the full transition to nontoxic shot for waterfowl hunting until 1991. Now, nearly 20 years later, these same factors weigh heavily in current debates about nontoxic shot requirements for hunting other game birds, requiring nontoxic bullets for big game hunting in California Condor range and for restricting the use of small lead sinkers and jig heads for sport-fishing. As with waterfowl, a strong science-based foundation is requisite for further transitions to nontoxic ammunition and fishing weights. Our experiences have taught us that the societal aspects of this transition are as important as the biological components and must be adequately addressed before alternatives to toxic lead ammunition, fishing weights, and other materials will be accepted as an investment in wildlife conservation.

Book chapter↗
USGS2006

Disease emergence and resurgence—the wildlife-human connection

In 2000, the Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN) was organized as a global disease watchdog group to coordinate disease outbreak information and health crisis response. The World Health Organization (WHO) is the headquarters for this network. Understandably, the primary focus for WHO is human health. However, diseases such as the H5N1 avian influenza epizootic in Asian bird populations demonstrate the need for integrating knowledge about disease emergence in animals and in humans. Aside from human disease concerns, H5N1 avian influenza has major economic consequences for the poultry industry worldwide. Many other emerging diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), monkeypox, Ebola fever, and West Nile fever, also have an important wildlife component. Despite these wildlife associations, the true integration of the wildlife component in approaches towards disease emergence remains elusive. This separation between wildlife and other species’ interests is counterproductive because the emergence of zoonotic viruses and other pathogens maintained by wildlife reservoir hosts is poorly understood. This book is about the wildlife component of emerging diseases. It is intended to enhance the reader’s awareness of the role of wildlife in disease emergence. By doing so, perhaps a more holistic approach to disease prevention and control will emerge for the benefit of human, domestic animal, and free-ranging wildlife populations alike. The perspectives offered are influenced by more than four decades of my experiences as a wildlife disease practitioner. Although wildlife are victims to many of the same disease agents affecting humans and domestic animals, many aspects of disease in free-ranging wildlife require different approaches than those commonly applied to address disease in humans or domestic animals. Nevertheless, the broader community of disease investigators and health care professionals has largely pursued a separatist approach for human, domestic animal, and wildlife rather than embracing the periodically proposed concept of “one medicine.” We especially need to embrace this concept as the human population increases because there will be more contact, direct and indirect, among humans, domestic animals, and wildlife. An “Ecology for a Crowded Planet” will be an even more pressing concern, and that includes increasing our understanding of disease ecology, especially that of the zoonoses.

Circular↗
USGS2006

Tularemia

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Circular↗
USGS2001

Disease emergence in birds: Challenges for the twenty-first century

The paper by Hartup et al. (2001) on House Finch ( Carpodacus mexicanus ) conjunctivitis is an example of the rapid geographic spread that can result from disease emergence in naïve populations. That event was neither novel nor transient relative to its occurrence or effects. Disease emergence and reemergence are hallmarks of the latter part of the twentieth century (Center for Disease Control 1994, Levins et al. 1994, DaSilva and Laccarino 1999, Gratz 1999). Current examples involving domestic animals include the problems in Europe with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or “mad cow disease”) (Brown 2001) and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) (Kitching 1999). Human health has been affected by diseases caused by an array of viruses (Morse 1993, Nichol et al. 1993, Murphy and Nathanson 1994), bacteria (Dennis 1998, DaSilva and Laccarino 1999), rickettsia (Walker and Dumier 1996, Azad et al. 1997), protozoans (Tuerrant 1997, Saini et al. 2000), and metazoan parasites (Hildreth et al. 1991, Gubler 1998), as well as other causes. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) has received the most notoriety of those diseases (Hahn et al. 2000, Schwartlander et al. 2000). A similar pattern exists on a global scale for free-ranging wildlife populations (Table 1) (Friend 1994, 1995; Epstein et al. 1998, Daszak et al. 2000). However, in comparison to disease emergence affecting humans and domestic animals, response to emerging diseases of wildlife is generally superficial. We present concepts and data to support our contention that failure to adequately address disease emergence in free-ranging wildlife is resulting in a diminished capability to achieve and sustain desired geographic distributions and population abundance for species of wild birds, including some threatened and endangered avifauna. For clarity, we define disease and disease emergence in the context of our use of those terms because they are the focus of our comments. Disease is any departure from health (Guralnik 1982); that is, dysfunction contributing to physiological, physical, reproductive, behavioral, or other impairment that reduces the probability of survival of individuals. If enough individuals are affected, the collective effects can reduce the sustainability of the population. Although disease can result from exposure to a wide variety of physical, chemical, and biological agents and other conditions, we focus this paper on microbes and parasites and to overt mortality caused by them. Thus, disease effects presented only represent the proverbial “tip of the iceberg” relative to the challenges wild avifauna face from disease. Our perspective of disease emergence expands the earlier definitions of emerging diseases by others (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1994, Morse 1995) to include all species. Our comments are defined by the context of disease occurrences that have increased within the past three decades, or threaten to increase in the near future relative to populations affected, geographic distribution, or magnitude of effects.

The Auk↗
USGS2001

The role of native birds and other wildlife on the emergence of zoonotic diseases

Wildlife can be an important source of transmission of infectious disease to humans. One potential transmission route involves hunting and fishing, both common activities in the United States and worldwide. For example, during 1996, approximately 11 million Americans, about 40 percent of the total population 16 years of age and older, took part in some recreational activity relating to wildlife and fish. Another potential route of infection focuses on urban and suburban environments. These locations are of special concern because of their increasing role as wildlife habitat, the greater interface between humans and wildlife that takes place within those environments, the paucity of knowledge about disease in those wildlife populations, and the general lack of orderly management for wildlife within those environments. In the wild, several trends are contributing to the growing importance of zoonotic diseases. First, the spectrum of infectious diseases affecting wildlife today is greater than at any time during the previous century. Second, the occurrence of infectious diseases has changed, from sporadic, self-limiting outbreaks that generally resulted in minor losses to frequently occurring events that generally result in major losses of wildlife. Third, disease emergence has occurred on a worldwide scale in a broad spectrum of wildlife species and habitats. Given the scope of the problem, current disease surveillance efforts are inadequate. Few state wildlife agencies allocate personnel and resources to address wildlife disease, despite their statutory responsibility for managing nonmigratory wildlife. Some state agencies provide minimal support for regional programs based at universities. At the federal level, the primary surveillance effort is conducted by the National Wildlife Health Center, operated by the U.S. Geological Survey. Outside of government, some veterinary schools, agriculture diagnostic laboratories, and other programs provide additional information on animal diseases, primarily by examining carcasses of dead wildlife submitted for analysis, and individual university-based researchers carry out a variety of studies. Typically, information about the occurrence of disease in free-ranging wildlife is derived from surveys and mortality events in areas where wildlife observations by agencies and the public are frequent enough to detect their occurrence before carcasses are removed by scavengers and predatory animals. The result is that disease occurrence is grossly underreported, heavily biased toward mortality events, and biased toward species of special concern and interest, such as game and endangered species. Therefore, the available information should be viewed as the “proverbial tip of the iceberg” relative to disease activity within wildlife populations.

National Academy of Science.↗
USGS1999

Salmonellosis

Avian salmonellosis is caused by a group of bacteria of the genus salmonella. Approximately 2,300 different strains of salmonellae have been identified, and these are placed into groupings called “serovars” on the basis of their antigens or substances that induce immune response by the host, such as the production of specific antibody to the antigen. Current taxonomic nomenclature considers the 2,300 different serovars to be variants of two species, Salmonella enterica and S. bongori. S. enterica is further subdivided into six subspecies on the basis of biochemical characteristics. This results in complex nomenclature for each serovar, such as, S. enterica subsp. enterica serovar typhimurium. Readers should be aware of this convention for naming salmonellae because they will find this nomenclature in the current scientific literature. In this chapter, different serovars of salmonellae will be referred to by their previous, less complex nomenclature, such as S. typhimurium.

Information and Technology Report↗
USGS1999

Tuberculosis

Avian tuberculosis is usually caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium avium. At least 20 different types of M. avium have been identified, only three of which are known to cause disease in birds. Other types of Mycobacterium rarely cause tuberculosis in most avian species; however, parrots, macaws, and other large perching birds are susceptible to human and bovine types of tuberculosis bacilli. Avian tuberculosis generally is transmitted by direct contact with infected birds, ingestion of contaminated feed and water, or contact with a contaminated environment. Inhalation of the bacterium can cause respiratory tract infections. Wild bird studies in the Netherlands disclosed tuberculosis-infected puncture-type injuries in birds of prey that fight at the nest site (kestrels) or on the ground (buteo-type buzzards), but tuberculosisinfected injuries were not found in accipiters (falco

Information and Technology Report↗
USGS1999

Avian cholera

Avian cholera is a contagious disease resulting from infection by the bacterium Pasteurella multocida. Several subspecies of bacteria have been proposed for P. multocida, and at least 16 different P. multocida serotypes or characteristics of antigens in bacterial cells that differentiate bacterial variants from each other have been recognized. The serotypes are further differentiated by other methods, including DNA fingerprinting. These evaluations are useful for studying the ecology of avian cholera (Fig. 7.1), because different serotypes are generally found in poultry and free-ranging migratory birds. These evaluations also show that different P. multocida serotypes are found in wild birds in the eastern United States than those that are found in the birds in the rest of the Nation (Fig. 7.2).

Information and Technology Report↗
USGS1999

Foreword

No abstract available.

Information and Technology Report↗
USGS1995

Waterfowl diseases: Causes, prevention, and control

Preventing and controlling disease in waterfowl is a difficult job. Few tools are available to deal with disease in highly mobile, unconfined animal populations, and few managers are trained and experienced in the prevention and control of avian diseases. Furthermore, the geographic distribution, frequency of occurrence, magnitude of losses, and causes of diseases in waterfowl, as in other life forms, change over time. Waterfowl mortality from infectious diseases, for example, has increased in the past 20 years (Friend 1992).

Report↗