Bovine tuberculosis

Managing Bovine Tuberculosis: Successes and Issues 235

Wildlife involvement also introduces some com-
pletely new management factors which must be
addressed in a successful programme.

15.3.2 Purpose and strategic objectives

Depending upon its impact, the involvement of
a TB wildlife maintenance host may force
significant reappraisal of the achievable pur-
pose, direction and objectives of a cattle TB pro-
gramme. Strategic direction may switch towards
emphasizing the control of TB infection in the
wildlife maintenance host, in order to facilitate
effective control of TB in the cattle population. If
controlling infection in the wildlife maintenance
host is not tenable, then the strategy may be
directed towards excluding wildlife from contact
with cattle or their feed, as has been proposed for
badgers in England (Tolhurst et al., 2009) and
white-tailed deer in Michigan (Walter et al.,
2012). The finding of a TB wildlife reservoir may
also pose an increased risk of transmission to
humans. Unfortunately, the final purpose of the
TB programme is unlikely to become clear until
the extent of the wildlife–cattle relationship has
been reviewed and the proposed programme and
its costs undertaken.
The presence of a significant wildlife main-
tenance host and TB vector may initially force
the adoption of disease containment objectives
for cattle, based on continued and possibly inten-
sified livestock test, slaughter and movement
control programmes. In parallel with this,
research and investigation should be under-
taken to fully elucidate wildlife epidemiology
and to identify possible measures to control TB
in the wildlife maintenance host or otherwise
prevent it from transmitting TB to cattle. This
may involve long-term multifactorial research
projects that will take considerable time (approx-
imately 22 years for New Zealand; Livingstone
et al., 2015a) to provide a realistic basis for set-
ting more ambitious long-term objectives for TB
freedom or eradication. This does not imply that
nothing should be undertaken until the best
solution has been identified and shown to work.
It is far easier and cheaper to intervene and con-
trol new infection in a wildlife population before
it becomes established and widespread. There-
fore, identifying a more moderate objective and

means of implementing within 3–5 years of

finding TB infection in a wildlife maintenance

host is preferable to waiting until all the research

and analysis has been completed before begin-

ning. Such a moderate programme will provide

much needed information and data that can be

used to improve its effectiveness and also identify

important areas for future research.

For countries like New Zealand, UK and Ire-

land, national goals for TB freedom for cattle or

eradication of M. bovis will not be achieved until

transmission of M. bovis from the infected wild-

life maintenance host to cattle permanently

ceases (Livingstone et al., 2015a, 2015b).

15.3.3 Legal status

Controlling infection in wildlife is likely to

involve or impact on a wider segment of the pub-

lic than when the disease is functionally limited

to cattle. Additional legal powers may be

required to enable effective surveillance and

control of TB in wildlife. This could include

enabling vaccination of cattle, wildlife or both,

or a requirement for physical exclusion of wild-

life from farms or facilities. Further legal controls

may also need to be applied to cattle farming

practice, such as restricting livestock movement

to and from areas of high wildlife TB prevalence

or even excluding them from areas where TB

wildlife is present or suspected. The need for

such legal powers will not become clear until a

wider strategic plan to control TB in both wildlife

and cattle has been evaluated, costed, communi-

cated and agreed with funding stakeholders,

government agencies, affected interest groups,

the general public and legislators.

15.3.4 Stakeholder support

Control or management of wildlife as part of a

cattle TB programme will most likely impact on a

wide range of people and organizations. Not all

of these will be willing or able funders, and some

may indeed be strongly opposed to the proposed

programme. In such a situation, a process will be

needed to manage this wider range of people

and interests to gain agreement (or at least

acceptance of) the programme and its funding.