For Raccoon Rabies Control

AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY

FOR RACCOON RABIES CONTROL

A REPORT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Report has been prepared through the joint efforts of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Animal Alliance of Canada, Animal Protection Institute and the Ottawa-Carleton Wildlife Centre. It was prompted by the mounting concern about the approach being taken to control raccoon rabies in Ontario and the need and opportunity to make a change.

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has spent close to 10 years and many millions of dollars on raccoon rabies. Despite the extensive measures and huge costs, the MNR is now entering the fifth year of reporting cases in the double digits in eastern Ontario, a troubling trend given the success of other jurisdictions.

Ohio, for example, has come very close to eradicating raccoon rabies in just three years using an oral rabies vaccine (ORV) delivered through aerial drops and ground baiting.

One of the methods the MNR has used to control raccoon rabies is “depopulation”, a highly controversial approach whereby all vector species such as raccoons, skunks and foxes are killed within 5-kilometers of a positive case. Ohio’s programme has been highly successful without the use of depopulation measures.

The “depopulation” activities undertaken by the MNR since 1999 have resulted in the killing of close to 9,000 animals, almost all of which turned out to be healthy.

In comparing Ontario’s lack of success in controlling raccoon rabies to the success of the Ohio programme, it is fair to question whether the Ministry’s approach might actually be contributing to the persistence of rabies in Ontario.

The MNR has also prohibited licensed wildlife rehabilitators in eastern Ontario from caring for vector species, forcing the care of orphaned wildlife underground, jeopardizing the reporting of incidents, increasing the risk to the public and downloading the problems and costs for area municipalities faced with the loss of these important community services. In comparison, 20 out of 21 states in the U.S. allow for the care of vector species by licensed rehabilitators because they found “it was a much safer alternative than leaving the public to do it”, according to Laura Simon, Urban Wildlife Director, The Fund for Animals and a member of the Connecticut Rabies Advisory Committee.

The “best practices” as demonstrated by Ohio show that governments can implement rabies programmes that are effective (fewer cases than Ontario), cost-efficient (about half the cost of the Ontario programme) and humane (no depopulation as the first line of defence).

RECOMMENDATIONS:

We call on the Minister and the Ontario Government to:

adopt “best practices” by assuming the effective, cost-efficient and humane rabies control programme based on the Ohio model which uses oral rabies vaccine (ORV) delivered through aerial drops and ground baiting;

immediately discontinue the MNR practices of “depopulation” or the non-selective killing of wildlife as part of the raccoon rabies control programme

bring Ontario in line with the majority of jurisdictions in North America that consider wildlife rehabilitators as a vital part of their rabies control program and license wildlife rehabilitators to handle rabies vector species while using universally-accepted standards for the care and release of all wildlife

adopt a cooperative approach with municipalities, community organizations and wildlife rehabilitators in providing an effective wildlife response based on realistic and progressive public education, not alarmist fear-mongering and the denial of help for people seeking to assist wildlife in distress

HISTORY:

Raccoon rabies was first reported 50 years ago in northern Florida. In 1977, unvaccinated raccoons were shipped into Virginia by hunting interests, resulting in rabies in that state. From there raccoon rabies has moved north, state by state, through the eastern seaboard of the United States over the last twenty-five years.

The MNR commenced a trap-vaccinate-release (TVR) program in 1994 in the Niagara area and later, along the St. Lawrence, to create a buffer in slowing the spread of the disease from New YorkState. In July 1999, the first case of raccoon rabies appeared in Ontario not far from the St. Lawrence River near Prescott.

ONTARIO’S SHAME:

Welcome to Ontario. If you were down in cottage country in eastern Ontario over the last three summers you might have witnessed the truck loads of animal carcasses being hauled away by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and its trappers. Some residents in these areas refer to the raccoon rabies control measures as “the MNR scorched earth program”.

Close to 9,000 raccoons and skunks, almost all of which turned out to be healthy, have been killed by the MNR as part of its controversial “depopulation” activities since the first case of raccoon rabies arrived in Ontario in 1999. And, this does not take into consideration the thousands of orphaned young left to die of starvation as much of the trapping and killing has taken place over the spring and summer birthing seasons. One cottager recounted finding a six-week old orphaned raccoon that was so thin and dehydrated that its eyes were sunken into its skull beyond being visible. The death for many of these babies is a long and painful one.

Ontario stands alone in using “depopulation” as a means of controlling raccoon rabies in North America.

HOW SERIOUS A THREAT?:

There is nothing like declaring a rabies threat to create an “emergency”. Just mentioning the word “rabies” has governments running for cover, at least in Ontario, as the politicians prepare to hand over millions of dollars for its “eradication”.

But, is it money well spent in relation to the personal risk that raccoon rabies poses in comparison to the other health risks we are facing? More important, how should the money in rabies programs be spent to ensure that human health is protected while giving taxpayers the best return on their dollar?

First, no one in North America has ever died of raccoon rabies. This is in spite of the fact that raccoon rabies has been prevalent, moving north through the eastern seaboard of the United States, for over 25 years. Even more amazing is the fact that there have been thousands of positive-tested animals in densely human-populated areas in the U.S., leading some to speculate about whether humans can even contract raccoon rabies. All of which makes the MNR scare mongering that it will be “disastrous” if it enters big cities like Ottawa and Toronto seem pretty ridiculous.

To put raccoon rabies in perspective consider that 60 or more people die from lightning strikes and 46 from hornet and wasp stings and up to 15 from dog bites in the U.S. each year and yet no one has ever died from raccoon rabies.

A COMPARISON OF THE OHIO AND ONTARIO PROGRAMMES:

The MNR continues to compare New York State with Ontario’s raccoon rabies control results. This is both intentionally misleading and self-serving as it is comparing ourselves to the worst rather than the best. New York did little in prevention during the early years of the outbreak and, in 1993, had the largest number of animal rabies cases ever recorded in a single state. On the other hand, Ontario started its prevention program in 1994, five years before the first case entered the province and has spent millions of dollars during this time, so residents have every right to expect raccoon rabies should be fully under control by now.

As for comparisons, it is much more appropriate to compare Ontario with Ohio State. But this comparison doesn’t make the Ontario rabies programme look effective which may explain why Ohio is never mentioned by the MNR.

Raccoon rabies entered Ohio State in 1997 and it had 60 cases that year. Ohio was able to reduce the cases to 24 in 1998 and to 5 cases in 1999 and then only 1 case in 2001 and 2002 for a total of 91 cases. In contrast, raccoon rabies entered Ontario in 1999 and it had 7 cases that year, 40 cases in 2000; 45 cases in 2001; 19 cases in 2002 and 11 cases up to April in 2003 for a total of 122 cases.

Now consider the different approaches between Ohio and Ontario. Ohio’s strategy in 1997 to stop the spread of raccoon rabies was to implement an extensive oral rabies vaccine (ORV) bait program. Two baitings per year were carried out through aerial drops along with some ground baiting until rabies was under control. The cost of the oral rabies vaccine program is approximately $200 per square kilometer.

Ontario’s program consists of “point infection control”, an experimental approach of a central “kill zone” known as “depopulation” within a 5-kilometer range of a positive case. All raccoons, skunks and foxes are trapped and killed in this range. Beyond, in a 5-10 kilometer range of concentric zones, trap-vaccinate-release (TVR) is carried out. Ground and aerial baiting is conducted beyond this area. The costly labour-intensive trapping element in Ontario’s program is $400-500 per square kilometer.

The MNR “depopulation” activities have killed almost 9,000 animals in the last three years in eastern Ontario. What is appalling is that these animals died in vain because 99.8% of them were healthy and tested negative for the rabies virus.

The only other region that has used “depopulation” has been New Brunswick and it simply imported the MNR program. The results there have been even more questionable. The first case of raccoon-strain rabies was seen in a skunk that likely came from Maine given it was found close to the border. Although the case was discovered in September 2000, “depopulation” was not even commenced until October 2001. Due to the shortage of live traps, kill traps were used and in spite of over 11,000 traps being set, less than 120 raccoons and skunks were caught. Unfortunately, 20 cats, 3 dogs and other non-target species were also killed. The cost of the campaign was over $300,000.

According to the Centres for Disease Control, Ohio is the “model” that is being used elsewhere. This is certainly understandable. Ohio’s raccoon rabies control program has been more effective than Ontario’s. It has cost less and has not resorted to killing thousands of healthy animals.

Considering that Ohio reduced its cases by more than half in just the second year and has had only one case in each of the last few years while Ontario continues to see positive cases in the double digits, it is fair to consider that Ontario’s kill program is very likely counter-productive. The MNR has failed to address troubling issues such as the effects of eliminating so many animals from a territory thereby opening up the area for increased movement of animals and the spread of disease. It has failed to explain why the depopulation programme is effective given that it has also eliminated many healthy animals that could have served as a buffer against disease. Finally, the MNR has utterly failed to work with wildlife rehabilitators to establish a reasonable and workable programme for rabies vector species. This failure has put members of the public at risk and prevented municipalities from implementing effective, cost-efficient and humane rabies programmes such as the one developed by Ohio.

THE OHIO PROGRAMME:

To summarize, Ohio’s programme is more effective, having pretty much eradicated raccoon rabies in three years, than Ontario’s. It is less expensive. It has not had to kill thousands of healthy animals. Information on the Ohio programme is attached.

WILDLIFE REHABILITATORS AS PARTNERS:

The MNR appears to be the only wildlife agency in North America that does not view rehabilitators as an important ally in the fight against wildlife disease. New York State’s enabling legislation, which created a rabies vector species rehabilitation programme, acknowledged that “authorizing wildlife rehabilitators to perform this function is infinitely

preferable to the current practice where well-intentioned but untrained citizens put themselves at risk by handling rabies vector species”. With many years of experience in dealing with raccoon rabies, it is why 20 out of 21 U.S. states allow for the care of vector species by licensed rehabilitators.

Rehabilitators provide an important service in terms of surveillance for wildlife disease as they are often the first line of contact; they work closely with allied agencies such as public health departments and those organizations responsible for disease testing; they offer a key service not only in observing but in reporting and tracking potential contacts. Finally, they are an important resource in that their service limits the public’s contact with wildlife.

Licensed wildlife rehabilitators are vaccinated and experienced in dealing with wildlife and in recognizing diseases. They handle orphaned animals that are quarantined, fully vaccinated against a variety of wildlife diseases including rabies and observed under veterinary supervision for many months beyond disease incubation periods. This makes them critical partners in the fight against wildlife disease. It makes no sense to eliminate this help and force the untrained public to care for wildlife given that experience has proven that people will simply not turn their backs on young animals in need. Ontario must adopt what has been learned from hard experience elsewhere in North America.

THE IMPACT ON MUNICIPALITIES:

The MNR continues to implement heavy-handed policies affecting rehabilitators largely without consultation. Ministry staff continue to resist co-operative working relationships with wildlife rehabilitators to establish a reasonable and workable programme for rabies vector species. This approach puts the public at risk and prevents municipalities from implementing effective, cost-efficient and humane wildlife response programmes – programmes that are particularly critical given the impact of development.

Municipalities like Ottawa have been left to face the very negative consequences of having to respond to thousands of calls from residents about wildlife problems along with having to turn away people seeking help for orphaned wildlife. It has meant new social, health and financial costs to municipalities along with having to deal with very unhappy and dissatisfied residents. The MNR has created a problem where none existed before and as City of Ottawa Councillor Rick Chiarelli recently said, “the cure is worse than the disease”.

Along with the loss of volunteer organizations to do this work, private sector support that has taken years to build has also been lost, leaving taxpayers to pay for much less service at a much higher cost, entirely out of the public purse. It is seen by municipalities like Ottawa as another form of provincial downloading in terms of having to face new costs as well as having to deal with angry residents.

WHY CONTINUE THIS COSTLY AND INHUMANE EXERCISE?:

When there are more humane, effective and cost-efficient programmes available, it is reasonable to ask Ministry of Natural Resources staff why they are not applying “best practices” to their raccoon rabies control programme and why they are resorting to outlandish and unsupportable fear-mongering tactics. It may be that the scientists who designed the experimental program cannot acknowledge the programme’s failure. It may be that those who are job dependant are driving the continuation of the programme. Certainly they recognized that there were problems when they stated that “there are obvious risks with this type of approach, such as reaction from animal rights groups and the fact that this has never been done before” (MNR Rabies Research Unit Report “Point Infection Control Tactic in the Event of the First Cases of Raccoon Rabies in Ontario” – June 29, 1999).

Others believe the continuation of this controversial programme is needed to support a research project that has just gotten underway with almost $1M of federal funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. The research being carried out as part of the NSERC project is predicated on finding positive cases of raccoon rabies in that it requires a large number of raccoon samples from “depopulation” zones over the next four years. Still others view the programme as a big ticket item that has supplied jobs to many over the years who are now feeling the pressure with declining cases of raccoon rabies and major competition for government funds from serious human-risk diseases like West Nile virus, SARS and Mad Cow disease.

EXPANDING PROGRAM:

There is concern over the significant expansion in the raccoon rabies program in eastern Ontario when, given the resources allocated over the last 10 years and compared to the results in Ohio, the public should have every right to expect the disease to be fully under control, if not eradicated in this province.

At the time of the expansion of the high-risk zone in eastern Ontario last July, there was considerable controversy due to the misrepresented facts on which the MNR attempted to