The Wildlife Industry -

 Trends and New Challenges

for Animal Health Agencies

May 2000

USDA, APHIS, VS

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health

Center for Emerging Issues
For more information, contact:

Christine Kopral or Katherine Marshall

Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health

555 So. Howes, Ft. Collins, CO 80521

(970) 490-7819 or (970) 490-7801

christine.a.kopral@usda.gov

katherine.l.marshall@usda.gov
Executive Summary

This paper provides a description of the varied and changing wildlife industry and explores some of

the challenges faced by animal health agencies as a result of emerging trends in the wildlife

industry. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of captive-held nontraditional species.

Free-ranging wildlife populations have expanded in number and geographic range as a result of

numerous government and private conservation initiatives. Millions of exotic animals are imported

into the US every year.

These trends present new challenges for animal health agencies. The captive wildlife industry

presents a whole new set of clients with needs similar to those of traditional livestock producers,

such as harmonized regulations regarding interstate movement, animal identification, and slaughter

inspection. Both captive and free-ranging wildlife present new challenges for disease control

programs. As program diseases are eradicated from traditional domestic livestock, wildlife may

become the only remaining reservoir for infection. However, due to the enormous public support

for wildlife conservation, traditional methods of disease control in a situation involving wildlife

may not be a viable option. Animal health agencies are also faced with increased opportunities for

disease transmission as a result of relocations of free-ranging wildlife and imports of exotic

species. An area of collaboration between animal health agencies could be better preparation for

animal relocations, including risk assessments and pre-movement testing. Finally, known diseases

of wildlife relevant to domestic livestock or poultry already are, or may become significant parts of

the mission of animal health agencies. 

VS:CEAH:CEI May 2000
VS:CEAH:CEI May 2000
Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Trends in the wildlife industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

 Captive wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

 Free-ranging wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

 Relocated wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

 Exotic animal imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Challenges for animal health agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 New clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 Constraints on disease control programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

 New emphasis on the role of wildlife in disease transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 Increased recognition of wildlife diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

VS:CEAH:CEI May 2000
VS:CEAH:CEI May 2000
Introduction

Wildlife issues represent a large, diverse, and growing area of concern

for individuals involved with animal health in local, state and federal

agencies as well as for private ranchers and farmers. Growth in wildlife

populations and increased interest in domestically rearing traditionally

wild animals has led to more interactions with domestic livestock, and

thereby increased opportunities for disease transmission. 

Lack of consistent regulations between states within the US compounds

the challenges faced by government agencies and wildlife owners.

Although the wildlife industry has similar needs for animal identification

and disease control, captive wildlife are not always subjected to the same

regulations as traditional livestock. There is a need for leadership in

promoting standardized definitions and regulations.

Another dilemma faced by government agencies is the need to serve both

agricultural and wildlife interests. Since these interests can be at odds,

the challenge is to protect one without harming the other.

Of specific interest to agencies dealing with the health of domestic

livestock is the challenge wildlife present in the eradication of diseases

such as brucellosis and tuberculosis. As the prevalence of these

program diseases reaches the point of eradication in domestic livestock,

the only remaining reservoirs for infection may be free-ranging or captive

wildlife populations. Lack of adequate surveillance of captive and free

ranging wildlife populations nationally may hinder efforts to control the

spread of these and other agriculturally important diseases.

The objective of this paper is to provide a brief description of this varied

and changing wildlife “industry” and to explore some of the issues

associated with this industry which may impact the mission of animal

health agencies.

Trends in the Wildlife Industry

The wildlife industry, as used here, includes captive wildlife production, 

free-ranging wildlife, relocated wildlife, and exotic animal imports. The

wildlife industry as a whole is characterized by diversity, growth, and

broad support. There has been an increase in the number of captive-held

nontraditional species and there are millions of exotic animals imported

into the US annually. Free-ranging wildlife populations have expanded

as a result of numerous government and private conservation initiatives,

including relocations to establish or maintain populations.

 

VS:CEAH:CEI 1 May 2000
The captive wildlife and alternative livestock industries have seen

unprecedented growth since the 1970’s. The exotic hoofstock

population in Texas in 1966 was 37,500, and by 1996 this population

had grown to 198,000.

1, 2 The North American Elk Breeders

Association, founded in 1990 with 300 members, had grown to 1,400

members with 90,000 farmed elk by 1997.3 In just four years, from

1992 to 1996, the estimated number of farmed deer grew from 44,000 to

126,000 with an estimated value of almost $80 million.4 The American

bison industry is reported to be growing by 30% a year, with more than

250,000 farmed bison in 1997, compared with 30,000 bison in 1972.5,6

The number of llamas in the US was reported at over 123,000 in 1999,

up from 53,000 in 1992.

7

 Growth of these industries is fueled by the

trend towards low-fat products, interest in alternate food products, a

growing world market for deer meat and antlers, and financial reward for

ranchers.

Since regulations may facilitate the expansion of the industry or

discourage its growth, an understanding of state regulations provides a

clue to the future of the industry. A 1999 survey of state agriculture

departments conducted by Veterinary Services’ Centers for

Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) found that 25 state

departments of agriculture had jurisdiction over cervidae, 6 states

reported shared responsibilities with a wildlife agency, and 19 states

reported that the state wildlife agency had jurisdiction (Appendix Table

1).

 a Six states, which are among the top ten states in both numbers of

captive cervidae and numbers of premises with captive cervidae, 

reported that the state department of agriculture had jurisdiction of

captive cervidae. 

All state departments of agriculture had some regulations for imported

cervidae, but most did not continue to regulate animals after they had

been imported. Regulations for captive wildlife varied by state, with

some restricting imports of cervidae from herds without CWD

monitoring or from regions where CWD is endemic, while others had no

such requirements. Concern about disease transmission has led four

states (AL, MD, SC, WY) to prohibit new deer or elk farms, while

others have restricted farming of species, such as red deer, due to

concerns about diluting the genetics of native elk.8,9,10 Many other states

allowed some deer species, but not others, and the species varied by

state. 

The Industry:

Captive wildlife

VS:CEAH:CEI 2 May 2000

a

 A telephone survey was conducted in the summer of 1999. A representative of each state agriculture

department was asked questions regarding population data, which agency has jurisdiction over cervidae,

whether farming of cervidae or bison is allowed, and other regulatory questions.
Of the states which track captive cervidae, Wisconsin, Texas and

Michigan have the largest number of premises with captive cervidae

(Table 1 and Appendix Table 2). Although Texas has by far the most

captive cervidae, deer and elk are not recorded separately. Of the states

that document deer and elk separately, Colorado has the most captive

elk and Michigan has the most captive deer. 

Table 1. Top ten states with captive cervidae populations, 

by numbers of animals and numbers of premises, 1999*

All states total 157,191 All states total 5,342

- subtotal 149,409 (95%) - subtotal 4,146 (78 %)

Oregon 2,041 (1.3%) North Dakota 93 (1.7%)

North Dakota 2,600 (1.7%) Arizona 125 (2.3%)

Nebraska 2,685 (1.8%) Minnesota 171(3.2%)

Montana 3,250 (2.1%) Iowa 203(3.8%)

Minnesota 5,771 (3.7%) Kentucky 265 (5.0%)

New York 7,500 (4.8%) New York 360 (6.7%)

Colorado 7,503 (4.8%) Pennsylvania 603 (11.3%)

Wisconsin 8,630 (5.5%) Michigan 720 (13.5%)

Michigan 18,800 (12.0%) Texas 770 (14.4%)

Texas 90,629 (57.7%) Wisconsin 836 (15.6%)

Numbers (% of

total)

Numbers (% of State

total)

State

Numbers of animals Numbers of premises

* available only for states which collect this information. Some states 

collect information for deer but not elk, or visa versa.

Most states regard bison as livestock and subject them to the same

regulations as cattle. A 1997 survey by the National Bison Association

(NBA) revealed that only Hawaii regarded bison as exotic. However, a

state veterinarian in Hawaii indicated during the CEAH survey that they

were in the process of changing the regulations so bison would be

7

6 11

34

62

#

3 #

2

6

3

10

34 31

34

56

16

3

3

9

#

2

50

74

5

42

18

33

5

3

3

9

58

8

60

35

19

11

35

#

3

3

87

11

40

7

4

12

29

7

115

30

Less than 2,500

2,500 to 5,000

5,000 plus

Number of bison

Bison: Number of premises and number of animals

Number = Number of premises

Cervidae

 

 Bison

VS:CEAH:CEI 3 May 2000
considered livestock and thus would be removed from a permanent

quarantine. In the 1997 NBA survey, only 3 states considered bison to

be wildlife: New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The three

states with the largest populations of farmed bison are South Dakota,

Montana, and North Dakota (Appendix Table 2).

Oregon, California, and Washington have the highest numbers of llamas,

with over 10,000 each (Appendix Table 2). The same three states also

have the largest number of premises with llamas.

Captive wildlife are also present in zoos and other animal exhibits, where

exhibitors are defined as having ‘animals on display to the public or

[conducting] performances featuring animals’.

11 The total number of

animal exhibitors in the US in 1994 and 1999 was 2,268 and 2,249,

respectively. Florida and California had the most animal exhibitors in

1999, with over 200 each, followed by Texas, Illinois, and New York,

each with over 100 exhibitors (Appendix Table 3). 

Both the federal government and private organizations administer

numerous programs aimed at wildlife conservation. The programs range

from establishment and maintenance of wildlife refuges to financial

incentives for individuals to develop wildlife-friendly habitat.

Federal support for wildlife conservation began in 1903 in what was to

become the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), with the

establishment of the first refuge on Pelican Island in Florida. The NWRS

has been successful in its mission of administering “..a national network

of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future

generations of Americans”.12 This success has resulted in large tracts of

land being returned to a condition suitable for maintaining free-ranging

wildlife. In 1998, a total of 514 national wildlife refuges encompassed

93 million acres. The NWRS received an unprecedented budget increase

of $41 million, for a total 1998 budget of $220 million. It was estimated

that almost 30 million visitors to wildlife refuges generated more than

$400 million in sales in regional economies during 1995 (USFWS @

refuges.fws.gov Public education and recreation).12

In a series of federal legislative acts, the federal government has allowed

for the encouragement and protection of wildlife in the US. In 1937, the

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act was established and allowed

for the creation of a fund from the federal excise tax on sporting arms

and ammunition. The money was returned to the states and matched 3

Other species

The Industry: 

Free-ranging wildlife

Wildlife conservation

programs 

VS:CEAH:CEI 4 May 2000
to 1 state hunting license fees.13 These funds are used for wildlife

management and research programs, habitat acquisition, wildlife area and

shooting range development, and hunter education programs.14

In 1966, Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act,

allowing the listing of native species as endangered, and providing

limited means for protection of those species.

12 This was followed by the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, which has remained the most

important regulation protecting endangered and threatened species

worldwide. Among other provisions, this act required all federal

agencies to undertake programs for the conservation of endangered and

threatened species, and provided authority for the acquisition of land for

listed plants and animals.

While modern agriculture has generally had a negative impact on wildlife

populations, farmers are now encouraged to develop wildlife habitat and

use wildlife-friendly farming techniques.15,16 The Habitat Conservation

Plan, a program begun in 1982 and administered by the US Fish and

Wildlife Service, aims to balance private individuals’ property rights with

wildlife needs. Through the plan, landowners are permitted to build

homes or other developments where preservation of wildlife habitat

would otherwise take precedence, in exchange for other conservation

measures taken by the landowner.17

Under the 1996 Farm Bill, a new conservation program, the Wildlife

Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), was initiated to protect critically

important wildlife habitat. Under this program, land owners (not just

agricultural land) are eligible for financial assistance to improve wildlife

habitat on their property. This program provides technical assistance

and cost-share payments up to 75% of the cost of installing wildlife

habitat practices.

Support for growth in wildlife populations has also been strong within

the private sector. More land is being made available to wildlife through

development of wildlife friendly backyards. Urban sprawl has increased

the amount of bluegrass lawns and shrubs available to elk and deer in the

Rocky Mountain foothills. According to the Colorado Division of

Wildlife, the elk and deer population is about 100 times what it was in

the early 1900’s, and the mountain lion population is about 10 times

what it was then. The National Wildlife Federation, in 1973, introduced

a successful Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program where members of

the public may receive certification for having a wildlife friendly

backyard. As of early 1998, over a half-million people had taken

advantage of the program to create wildlife-friendly yards.

18

VS:CEAH:CEI 5 May 2000
Numerous private organizations attest to the public interest in wildlife

conservation. Some of the larger organizations are the National Wildlife

Federation, reporting 4.4 million members; the World Wildlife Fund,

with more than 1 million members in the US alone; the National

Audobon Society, with 550,000 members; the Nature Conservancy, with

900,000 members; and the Defenders of Wildlife, with 250,000

members.19

Although wildlife conservation tends to be associated with ethical or

aesthetic motives, free-ranging wildlife also has enormous economic

benefits. The most recent survey by the US Fish and Wildlife Service

found that 77 million Americans aged 16 and older (nearly 40% of US

adults) either fished, hunted or watched wildlife in 1996.20 This survey

also documented that approximately $104 billion is spent each year on

fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation. By comparison, the

US horse industry produces goods and services valued at $25.3 billion

annually, and 1998 total agricultural exports were valued $52 billion.21,22

 

When a wildlife species population is either too low in numbers, or not

present at all, deliberate release of animals in the wild is used as a tool to

increase population numbers. A number of terms describe this

intentional movement of animals (translocation, reintroduction,

reestablishment, restocking, repatriation) depending on where the

animals originated and whether they are being released at a habitat in

which the species of animal previously lived. For the purposes of this

report the term relocation will be used to describe any intentional

movement of animals from one location to another, the animals can be

derived from either captive-propagated or wild-caught animals. 

State-sponsored relocation efforts in the US usually involving game

species desired by hunters and trappers, date back to the turn of the

century.23 Some early examples aimed at conservation include the

reintroduction of elk into Pennsylvania between 1913 and 1926, as well

as into Minnesota in 1935.24,25 In the late 1930’s federal money for

wildlife relocation became available through the Federal Aid in Wildlife

Restoration Act. Several beginning initiatives funded by this act in

Virginia included restocking beavers in the 1940’s, raccoons in the

1940’s and 50’s, and pheasants in the 1950’s.13 Another early program

restocked deer in the southeastern US.26

Relocation efforts have escalated in the last three decades. A survey of

biologists, zoos, and conservation agencies found that about 500

relocation programs were conducted annually from 1973-1986 in North

America.27,28 Based on the finding that the number of programs had

doubled from 1974 to 1981, the authors estimated that nearly 700

Wildlife

organizations

Economic benefits

 

The Industry: 

Relocated wildlife

VS:CEAH:CEI 6 May 2000
relocations were being done annually in the late 1980’s. More than 90%

of the relocations during the review were game species, with ungulates

comprising 39% of the game species. A survey conducted in 1990-1991

found that pronghorn, deer, or bison were restored in 233 areas of the

United States; wolves, bears, weasels, or cats were restored in 114 areas;

bighorn sheep in 182 areas; elk in 88 areas; and the gray wolf in 17 areas

of the US.29 

A survey of US state wildlife agencies in 1986 found that 29 of the 45

responding states had relocated mammals during 1985.30 While the top

reason given for relocation was to restore native animals to historic

habitat (25 states), the second most common reason was to establish

new populations, including exotics (15 states). It was also reported that

private groups had relocated mammals in 19 states. State wildlife

departments sometimes exchange wildlife; past trades have involved

turkeys, moose, bighorn sheep, and bears.31

The exotic pet trade has grown as more individuals develop an interest in

owning wildlife species as pets or investments. Millions of exotic

animals are imported every year, many of which go to pet shops, private

collections, or roadside zoos. A pet industry trade association reported

that the number of pet reptiles and amphibians in the US increased from

2 million in 1990 to 7.3 million in 1996.32 According to a database

maintained by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US imported 77

thousand mammals and 1.9 million live reptiles in 1998. 

Table 2: Imports of live mammals and reptiles, 1998

Number of countries of 57 80

 origin

Value ($) 17,922,083 6,368,272

Number of animals 77,398 1,921,272

Mammals Reptiles

Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service

Challenges for Animal Health Agencies

As a result of the changes in the wildlife industry, animal health agencies

are faced with many new challenges. The expanding popularity of

raising alternative livestock is bringing with it a whole new and diverse

set of clients. Animal health agencies no longer deal only with producers

that raise cattle, swine, poultry, or sheep. They now must be prepared to

confront issues that are relevant to producers of deer, elk, bison, llamas,

and other captive wildlife. 

The Industry: 

Exotic animal imports

New Clients

VS:CEAH:CEI 7 May 2000
Members of the wildlife industry indicated in a 1998 survey that federal

involvement is needed with regulatory authority over movement of

captive wildlife and exotic species, and with monitoring of disease with

the goal of disease prevention.33 There is also interest in having all

farmed species treated the same as other livestock, including the

mandatory inspection of nontraditional livestock carcasses at slaughter. 

The National Institute for Animal Agriculture (NIAA) has adopted

resolutions aimed at increasing federal involvement with captive wildlife

and alternative livestock. One resolution requests the development of 

“a protocol that can be used by various states for the interstate

movement of captive wildlife and alternative livestock.”34 Another

NIAA resolution recommends that since “considerable concern exists

regarding the potential impact of growing numbers of nontraditional

livestock on the brucellosis eradication effort”, USDA should conduct a

risk analysis of brucellosis in these alternative species.

APHIS, Veterinary Services has begun to meet these challenges. One

initiative has been the incorporation of wildlife issues into the agency’s

strategic plan.35 The plan has expanded the “definitions of livestock to

cover those wildlife or exotic species which are now being raised and

produced like traditional forms of livestock”. Other plan objectives

include establishing agreements with state or federal agencies dealing

with wildlife to prevent the transmission of disease to livestock; and

including captive exotic/wildlife species in animal identification progams.

VS has also established a Wildlife Unit, whose purpose is to coordinate

and participate in activities regarding diseases transmittable between

wildlife and domestic animals, including those diseases affecting

nontraditional livestock.

The US Food and Drug Administration is also recognizing the

importance of wildlife and alternative livestock species. The agency

planned, in 1998, to propose measures to encourage pharmaceutical

companies to develop and seek approval of drugs for minor species.36 

‘Minor species’ include all US wildlife, minor species farmed for food,

and exotic pets. In a preliminary set of proposals, an FDA working

group stated that “It is clearly in the public interest to treat such diseases

[of minor species] before they are transmitted to people or other

animals”.36

The broad and increasing support for conservation of free-ranging

wildlife brings new emphasis to another challenge for animal health

agencies: the need to protect free-ranging wildlife while also serving

agricultural interests. This presents constraints to disease control

programs for traditional domestic livestock.

 

Constraints on disease

control programs

VS:CEAH:CEI 8 May 2000
Additional evidence attesting to this dilemma is the new field of animal

law. Both Harvard and Georgetown law schools are now offering

courses in animal law, the goal of which is to recognize animals’ higher

levels of cognition and social development and to give them individual

rights rather than be treated as property.37 While this has yet to impact

wildlife, it is not inconceivable that in the future, market value

compensation for destroying infected wildlife will be considered

inadequate, and perhaps inappropriate. Consequently, traditional

methods of disease control in an outbreak situation involving wildlife

may not be a viable option.

The practices used to facilitate wildlife diversity and wildlife production

in captivity are often not harmonious with control of disease

transmission. Movement of animals, be it relocation of domestic

wildlife, trade of captive species, or imports of exotics, brings with it

some risks.

RELOCATIONS

Relocation of animals has resulted in disease transmission from the

introduced animals to the resident population. Two well known

examples are the introduction of the brushtail possum, which resulted in

transmission of bovine tuberculosis to farmed cattle and deer in New

Zealand, and the introduction of raccoon rabies to the mid-Atlantic area

of the US when infected raccoons were translocated from the

southeastern US. Less well known is the infection of wood bison at the

Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada with bovine tuberculosis and

brucellosis, attributed to the relocation of infected plains bison from the

US.38 More recently, red foxes in the process of being relocated were

found to harbor Echinococcus multilocularis, the tapeworm which

causes hydatid disease in humans.

38 Relocated bighorn sheep from

Arizona introduced viral pneumonia to local bighorns in New Mexico.39 

Feral pig populations are known to be infected with pseudorabies and

swine brucellosis and yet have often been relocated to new areas and

states by both government agencies and private individuals.

While any single relocation has the potential to transmit disease from one

area to another, documentation of disease-related aspects of relocations

is sporadic at best. A study conducted to review potential disease

transmission as a result of animal relocation found that animals in nearly

25% of relocations were not given a physical examination by a biologist

or veterinarian prior to release.b,28 Even when preventive measures are

taken, such as examining and testing animals, it is not always possible to

New emphasis on the

role of wildlife in

disease transmission

VS:CEAH:CEI 9 May 2000

b

 The study included relocations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the US.
know what parasite or other infection might be transferred when animals

are relocated.40

One area of collaboration between animal health agencies could be better

preparation for animal relocations, including risk assessments and

pre-movement testing.

ANIMAL EXHIBITS

Animal exhibitors may also play a role in disease transmission through

animal movement with exposure to other animals, and by selling to

captive exotic animal owners. The American Zoo and Aquarium

Association documented that more than 1,000 mammals are sold,

donated or traded to dealers and brokers each year by affiliated zoos.

41

 

The surplus animals may end up at auction markets, in hunting preserves,

or in the pet trade.

EXOTIC IMPORTS

Nonnative plant and animal species, whether imported intentionally or

accidentally, have caused extensive damage, reported at $123 billion a

year.42 Two examples, both in the Great Lakes, are zebra mussels, which

clog water pipes, and sea lampreys, which have reduced populations of

trout and other native fish.42,43

As a result, a presidential directive has allocated $28.8 million for an

interagency task force to address research and other issues regarding

invasive species. The task force will have representatives from the

Departments of Commerce, Interior, and Agriculture. While federal

efforts until now have focused on aquatic species, the expanded effort

will target all invasive plants and animals ‘... from insects to reptiles’.42 

APHIS, VS’ strategic plan includes an objective aimed at preventing the

introduction and establishment of nonindigenous invasive species that

may cause harm to domestic livestock, poultry, wildlife, or aquacultural

products. The first step is regulations to prevent the introduction of

vectors of heartwater. Other diseases transmissible by exotic imports

may come to light as a result of the increased interest in these species,

significantly impacting import activities. APHIS has also granted funds

for the Entomological Society of America to develop a list of

destructive, non-indigenous insect species that may come into the

country on animal imports or packing materials.44

VS:CEAH:CEI 10 May 2000
As diseases are eradicated from traditional livestock, both captive and

free-ranging wildlife may present known or unknown reservoirs for

infection. Testing procedures used to detect disease in traditional

livestock may be ineffective in nontraditional species. 

A few of the known diseases of wildlife relevant to domestic livestock or

poultry are grouped below according to their immediate relevance to

animal health agencies, in terms of disease-program and trade

implications. That does not mean that lower-ranked diseases are of any

less importance in the long run. Awareness of disease in wildlife does

not necessarily mean the risks posed to other groups of animals or

species are fully understood. Even if the risks are understood, strategies

to reduce or eliminate risk from disease must consider many, often

conflicting interests. 

ü Bovine tuberculosis - Bovine tuberculosis (TB) has been

confirmed in numerous captive cervid herds since 1991. Since 1991,

regulations applying to TB testing of captive cervidae have been 

implemented by various states. 

Bovine TB was first found in free ranging cervidae in Michigan in

1975. The disease was again found in a Michigan white-tailed deer

in 1994, and has since been found in free ranging white-tailed deer in

a six county area of Michigan. Annual white-tailed deer surveys

have been conducted in what is called the Bovine TB Management

Area which includes, but is larger than, the affected six counties in

Michigan. During the years 1995 through 1998, these surveys

indicated an infection prevalence ranging from 3.3% to 0.9%.45 In

1999, a sample of 19,500 deer indicated an infection prevalence of

0.2%.

It is believed that supplemental feeding, used in this area to increase

populations and congregate animals, has contributed to the spread of

tuberculosis. As a result, in 1999 supplemental feeding was banned

in the affected areas. Control of tuberculosis in this population is

hampered, in part, because of the economic, social and political

impacts of deer hunting. 

The discovery of bovine TB in free-ranging deer prompted extensive

surveillance of cattle in the affected areas. As of late 1999, the

disease had been confirmed in 4 cattle herds, prompting the USDA

to issue an interim rule allowing Michigan to have 2 TB status zones,

with the affected area considered a nonmodified accredited free zone

while the rest of the state is still considered accredited free.45

Increased recognition

of wildlife diseases 

 ̧ High relevance

VS:CEAH:CEI 11 May 2000
Bovine TB was endemic on the island of Molokai until all cattle were

removed in 1986. The disease reemerged in cattle in 1997. A study

was initiated in late 1997 to evaluate the possibility of a TB reservoir

in wildlife on that island, specifically focusing on deer, wild swine,

goats and mongoose. As of December 1999, one animal of 100 feral

swine tested was found to be culture positive for Mycobacterium

bovis.

46

ü Brucellosis in elk and bison - Wild elk and bison in the

Yellowstone National Park area in western Wyoming are known to

be infected with bovine brucellosis. Brucellosis was first detected in

Wyoming bison in 1917 and in elk in 1930.47,48 Winter feeding of the

elk concentrates animals on the feed grounds and females aborting

their calves facilitates transmission of the bacterium, thereby

maintaining brucellosis in these herds. The disease has not been

reported in elk populations without artificial winter feeding

grounds.47 

Brucellosis-free status is threatened for Idaho, Montana, and

Wyoming as a result of the disease in elk and bison. It has been

shown that elk and bison can transmit brucellosis to cattle under

laboratory conditions.47,48 In addition, epidemiologic evidence cited

in a 1999 report by the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis

Committee suggests that natural transmission of brucellosis from elk

and bison to domestic cattle has occurred in the area.

49

 

The Yellowstone situation is bound to impact other efforts to

reintroduce elk or bison. Cattle industry officials in Kentucky and

Tennessee voiced strong opposition to a proposed release of 600 elk

in those states.50 

ü Brucellosis and pseudorabies in feral swine - While the domestic

swine industry has nearly eradicated swine brucellosis and

pseudorabies, eradication in domestic swine will not eliminate the

disease from the US. Feral swine serve as a reservoir of infection for

both of these economically important diseases, and their populations

have flourished. They continue to spread to new states and have

recently been documented in 23 states, probably as a result of both

natural spread and uncontrolled intentional release by hunters. In

California in the 1960’s, feral swine existed in 12 counties and they

now have been documented in 53 of the state’s 58 counties.

51

 

Indiana has documented feral swine populations in two areas where

they did not exist 6 years ago. Because of their revenue- producing

potential as a game source for sportsmen, and their potential for a

niche wild boar market in Europe, there is support for these

populations to exist, if not continue growing. 

VS:CEAH:CEI 12 May 2000
In Florida, approximately one third of all domestic swine

pseudorabies is due to transmission from feral swine.

52

 Recent

studies have shown that venereal, not respiratory, transmission is the

primary means for natural transmission of pseudorabies amongst feral

swine populations, and from feral swine to domestic animals.

53 In

serosurveys conducted in feral swine populations during the years

1962 through 1997, the prevalence of Brucella suis infection ranged

from 10 to 24%.54 The most common route of transmission is

through animal to animal contact or oral contact with contaminated

reproductive tissues.

 

ü Chronic wasting disease in mule deer, elk, and white-tailed deer -

A member of the family of transmissible spongiform

encephalopathies, chronic wasting disease (CWD) was first observed

in captive research animals, and has since been reported in

free-ranging populations of mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk in

Colorado and Wyoming. Surveys of hunter-killed deer and elk have

reported the disease at a prevalence of 2.9% in deer and 0.4% in

elk.55 CWD has also been diagnosed in captive elk herds in South

Dakota, Nebraska, and in one herd in Oklahoma where the infected

elk were traced to a farm in Montana.56 

üE. coli O157:H7 in deer - In 1995, a hunter-killed black-tailed deer

was confirmed as the source of an outbreak of human disease in

Oregon. The same year, the organism was also isolated from

white-tailed deer feces in Texas. A study has shown that white-tailed

deer inoculated with O157:H7 are capable of carrying and shedding

the bacteria. A 1992 survey of 100 white-tailed deer in the

southeastern US found no evidence of O157:H7 infection.57 Another

survey of 300 deer fecal samples and 400 hunter-killed deer from

1997-1998 in Georgia yielded three deer positive for O157:H7.58

ü Mycobacterium paratuberculosis - Paratuberculosis, or Johne’s

disease, is endemic in domestic cattle, primarily dairy, in the United

States. It has been found in many wildlife species, mostly ruminants,

in countries worldwide.59 It has been isolated from farmed deer in

New Zealand, farmed alpacas in Australia, and free-ranging deer in

Scotland.60,61,62 The disease has also been found in wild rabbits in

Scotland.63 Surveys showed that the prevalence of disease in rabbits

was higher in areas that also had above-average prevalence in

domestic livestock. 

Paratuberculosis has been isolated from farmed deer in the US.64 

The disease has also been confirmed in llamas, and is known to occur

in a population of free-ranging Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep in

Colorado.65,66 This prompted the National Park Service to ban the

 ̧ Medium relevance

VS:CEAH:CEI 13 May 2000
use of llamas as pack animals in some national parks, for fear that

llamas would transmit the disease to wild Desert Bighorn Sheep.67

üVelogenic newcastle disease - Velogenic newcastle disease is

considered a foreign animal disease in the US. However, since 1990

the disease has been found in native birds; specifically, the

double-crested cormorant, white pelican, and ring-billed gull. The

only reported domestic poultry outbreak traced to wild birds

(cormorants) occurred in domestic turkeys in North Dakota in

1992.

55

üVesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) - Vesicular stomatitis is considered

to be enzootic on Ossabaw Island, Georgia. Surveys have also

shown serologic evidence of VSV in numerous wildlife species

including white-tailed deer and feral swine in areas of Louisiana and

Florida, and mule deer, elk, and pronghorn in Colorado.57,68 During

the last 20 years, most outbreaks of VSV in domestic animals have

occurred in the western US.

ü Hemorrhagic diseases in deer - Hemorrhagic disease in white

tailed deer may be caused by either bluetongue or epizootic

hemorrhagic disease (EHD) viruses. Serological evidence indicates

that EHD virus has infected white-tailed deer and other ruminant

wildlife species throughout the US, although infection with EHD

does not always result in hemorrhagic disease. Cattle have been

reported to be infected with EHD most commonly without clinical

signs, although there have been reports of outbreaks in Oregon and

Tennessee with attendant illness. During 1998, mortality rates of up

to 90% were reported in free-ranging white tailed deer populations in

many central states and Washington. EHD virus was isolated from

deer in several of these states.

69 Though the risk appears to be low,

EHD does pose a risk to US livestock not only in terms of the health

of livestock, but also for potential trade implications.

ü Sparganosis in feral swine - This zoonotic parasitic disease of

feral swine has been documented in feral swine from Florida and

Texas.70 The true prevalence and distribution of this disease in the

United States remains unknown. Although reports of infection in

humans in the US are rare (70 cases from 1908-1991), they do

occur, and uncooked feral swine meat has been suspected as the

cause of infection in some of the cases. This infection appears not to

be clinically significant in swine, and has not been diagnosed in

domestic herds. While it is not an OIE list disease and reporting is

not required at this time, it may pose a risk to human health and

could threaten exports of feral hog meat.

 ̧ Lower relevance

VS:CEAH:CEI 14 May 2000
Conclusion

The trends presented in this paper signify new challenges for animal

health agencies. The captive wildlife industry presents a whole new set

of clients with needs similar to those of traditional livestock producers,

such as harmonized regulations regarding interstate movement, animal

identification, and slaughter inspection. Both captive and free-ranging

wildlife present new challenges for disease control programs. As

program diseases are eradicated from traditional domestic livestock,

wildlife may become the only remaining reservoir for infection.

However, due to the enormous public support for wildlife conservation,

traditional methods of disease control in a situation involving wildlife

may not be a viable option. 

Animal health agencies are also faced with increased opportunities for

disease transmission as a result of trade in captive species, relocations of

free-ranging wildlife, and imports of exotic species. Some of the known

diseases of wildlife that may play important roles in disease transmission

to traditional livestock, poultry, or humans are grouped according to

their immediate relevance to animal health agencies, in terms of

disease-program and trade implications.

 

VS:CEAH:CEI 15 May 2000
References

1. Mungall ED & Sheffield WJ. 1994. Exotics on the Range - The Texas Example. Texas A&M Univ. Press,

College Station, TX.

2. Texas Agricultural Statistics Service. 1996. Exotic hoofstock survey.

3. Robbins J. 1997. Elk ranchers see more profits, and critics. New York Times, Sep 21, 1997.

4. North American Deer Farmers Association, 1999.

5. Zimmerman LB. 1997. Waiting game - exotic meats and wild game offer great health benefits, but price and

consumer reluctance are slowing their acceptance in the mainstream. Supermarket News, June 30, 1997. Pg

17.

6. Anderson V & Sexhus D. 1997. The bison industry. Bison World. Jul/Aug/Sep 1997.

7. International Lama Registry, 1999 @ www.llamaregistry.com/state.htm.

8. North American Elk Breeders Association, 1999.

9. Elk ranchers escape from Colorado Division of Wildlife. High Country News, June 1994.

10. Williams T. 1992. The elk ranch boom. Audobon Society, May-June 1992:14-20.

11. USDA, APHIS, Animal Care, 1999.

12. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999 @ www.fws.gov.

13. Backtracking to the challenge of restoration 1937-1970s. Virginia Wildlife, January 1989.

14. On the water and in the field: National wildlife conservation program celebrates 60th anniversary. 1997.

Outdoor California 58(6):35.

15. Ratti JT & Scott JM. 1991. Agricultural impacts on wildlife: Problem review and restorations needs. The

Environmental Professional 13:263-274.

16. Knight F. 1994. Farmland: A New York State wildlife habitat. Conservationist 49:28-32.

17. Giving rare creatures a fighting chance. National Wildlife, Feb/Mar 1998.

18. Program encourages home-based wildlife habitats. 1998. Workbench 54:14.

19. WWF, NAS, NC, DW - all online, 1999.

20. US Fish and Wildlife Service & US Dept of Commerce. 1997. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and

Wildlife-Related Recreation.

21. VS, CEAH, CEI.1998. Current trends and uncertainties for future of US agriculture, May 1998.

22. USDA, ERS. US Agricultural Trade Update. Feb 1999.

23. Enochs CR. 1997. Gone today, here tomorrow. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and

Policy, Summer 1997.

24. Reintroduction of elk into Pennsylvania @ www.iup.edu, 1999.

25. DNR finalizes elk management plan for northwestern Minnesota, The Associated Press, Dec 29, 1998.

VS:CEAH:CEI 16 May 2000
26. Ellsworth D, Honeycutt R, Silvy N, et al. 1994. While-tailed deer restoration to the southeastern United States:

Evaluating genetic variation. Journal of wildlife management 58(4):686-697.

27. Griffith B, Scott J, Carpenter W, Reed C. Translocation as a species conservation tool: status and strategy. 

 Science, 1989:245;477-480.

28. Griffith B, Scott J, Carpenter W, Reed C. Animal translocations and potential disease transmission. J Zoo 

Wildlife Med, 1993:24(3);231-236.

29. Fellers G & Drost C. Handbook for Restoring Native Animals. Natural Resources Report, June 1995. US 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Natural Resources Publication Office; Denver, Colorado.

30. Boyer DA & Brown RD. 1988. A survey of translocation of mammals in the United Stats 1985. In:

Translocation of Wild Animals, edited by Nielsen L & Brown RD. Wisconsin Human Society, Inc. & Caesar

Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute.

31. Turbak G & Seaver J. 1992. The great state animal swap. National Wildlife 30:42-45.

32. Business Communications Company. 1997. The Pet Industry: Food, Accessories, Health Products and Services -

Introduction, Summary, Pets and their Owners, Overviews and Food. Oct 1997.

33. VS. 1998. VS of the Future, May 1998.

34. NIAA (formerly Livestock Conservation Institute), 1999 @ www.lcionline.org/edcomres.html.

35. VS Strategic Plan, Feb 1999 & March 2000.

36. Kurtzweil P. 1998. Sick call of the wild. (FDA wants drug companies to increase development of products

designed specifically for treating sick wild animals). FDA Consumer 32(4).

37. Glaberson W. 1999. Legal pioneers seek to raise lowly status of animals. New York Times, Aug 18, 1999.

38. Davidson WR, Nettles VF. Relocation of wildlife: identifying and evaluating disease risks. Transactions of the 

 57th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 1992:57;466-473.

39. Woodford MH. 1993. International disease implications for wildlife translocation. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife

Medicine 24(3):265-270.

40. Cunningham A. 1996. Disease risks of wildlife translocations. Conservation Biology 10(2):349-353.

41. Zoo group’s chief proposes tougher animal-trade rules. San Jose Mercury News, Dec 31, 1999.

42. Carr C. 1999. War on ‘invasive species’ is joined. Washington Post, Feb 3, 1999.

43. ABC World News Tonight. 1999. Tiny Foreign Invaders. Feb 3, 1999.

44. ESA Newsletter. Nov 1998. Vol 21, no 11.

45. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2000. Summary of Michigan Wildlife TB Surveillance, April 1,

2000 @ www.dnr.state.mi.us/wildlife/division

46. Personal communication, Dr. R. Meyer, APHIS,VS.

47. Thorne T, Abendroth D, Kilpatrick S, et al. 1996. Beating brucellosis. Wyoming wildlife 60(9):17.

48. Baskin Y. 1998. Home on the range. BioScience 48(4).

49. WY tracking brucellosis. Associated Press, Feb 20, 1999.

50. Kester W. 1997. Proposed elk release stirs bangs concerns. Beef, Aug 1997.

VS:CEAH:CEI 17 May 2000
51. Updike D. 1999. California State Report. Feral Swine Symposium, June 1999.

52. Levenstein J. 1999. Florida State Report. Feral Swine Symposium, June 1999.

53. Romero C & Meade P. 1999. Feral Swine Symposium, June 1999.

54. Conger T, et al. 1999. Feral Swine Symposium, June 1999.

55. Nettles VF. 1998. Emerging diseases in wildlife. Foreign animal disease seminar III via satellite. Feb 1998.

56. Anderson J. 1998. Policy battles disease in elk, deer. Omaha World-Herald, July 10, 1998.

57. Report of the committee on wildlife diseases. USAHA Proceedings, Oct. 1997.

58. SCWDS Briefs. 1998. Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, University of Georgia, Jan 1998.

59. Chiodini RJ, Van Kruiningen HJ, Merkal RS. 1984. Ruminant paratuberculosis (Johnes’ disease): The current

status and future prospects. Cornell Vet 74:218-262.

60. de Lisle GW, Wilson CA, Yates GF, et al. 1996. The post-mortem diagnosis of paratuberculosis in farmed deer.

Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium on Paratuberculosis.

61. Sharp JM, Stevenson K, Challans JA, et al. 1996. Mycobacterial infections of free-living deer in Scotland.

Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium on Paratuberculosis.

62. Hope A, Ridge SE, Condron RJ. 1994. Johnes’s disease in alpacas (Lama pacos) in Australia. Proceedings of the

Fourth International Colloquium on Paratuberculosis.

63. Greig A, Stevenson K, Perez V, et al. 1996. Paratuberculosis in wild rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus).

Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium on Paratuberculosis.

64. Stehman SM, Rossiter CA, Shin SJ, et al. 1996. Johne’s disease in a fallow deer herd: Accuracy of fecal culture

and results of environmental sampling. Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium on Paratuberculosis.

65. Belknap EB, Getzy DM, Johnson LW, et al. 1994. Mycobacterium paratuberculosis infection in two llamas.

JAVMA 204(11): 1805-1808.

66. Spraker TR. 1994. Letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune, Dec 18, 1994.

67. National Park Service Briefing Statement. Oct 28, 1994.

68. Webb PA, McLean RG, Smith GC, et al. 1987. Epizootic vesicular stomatitis in Colorado, 1982: Some

observations on the possible role of wildlife populations in an enzootic maintenance cycle. Journal of Wildlife

Diseases 23(2):192-198.

69. SCWDS Briefs. 1999. Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, University of Georgia, Vol 14, Jan

1999.

70. VS, CEAH, CEI. 1998. Sparganosis in Florida, December 1998. Impact Worksheet.

VS:CEAH:CEI 18 May 2000
Appendix Table 1 - Captive cervidae regulations by state, 1999

MA Wildlife Restricted: no elk Yes No Yes No

Natural Prohibited n/a n/a Yes No

Resources

MD

Restricted: red/fallow deer, reindeer No No Yes No

only

ME Agriculture

LA Agriculture “ Yes No Yes No

KY Wildlife “ No No No No

Pending retest of elk from Yes No

GYA

KS Agriculture “ Yes

IA Agriculture “ Yes No No Yes

Pending retest in 90 days Yes Yes

if from herd which is not

accredited

IN Agriculture “ No

Natural “ No No No No

Resources

IL

ID Shared “ Yes No Yes No

HI Agriculture “ Yes Permanent Yes Yes

GA Shared “ No No Yes Yes

FL Agriculture “ No No No Yes

DE Agriculture Allowed No No No Yes

CT Agriculture Allowed No No No Yes

CO Shared Restricted: no white tail deer Y ???Y Yes Yes

CA Wildlife Restricted: fallow deer only No No No No

AR Wildlife Allowed No No No No

Restricted: no elk (unless Yes No n/a Yes

grandfathered), no native deer

species (mule or white tail)

AZ Wildlife

AK Wildlife Allowed Yes n/a No No

Prohibited - although privately No No No

enclosing free ranging cervidae for

the purposes of hunting is allowed,

premises with pet elk exist

AL Agriculture

Report required when

animal sold or

purchased?

Individual ID

required?

Import quarantine for

animals which meet

guidelines?

Population or

premises data

collected?

Agency with Is farming of cervidae allowed?

jurisdiction

State

VS:CEAH:CEI 19 May 2000
Restricted: reindeer and fallow deer No No Yes No

only

WA Wildlife

VA Wildlife Restricted: fallow only Yes No No No

45 day minimum pending No No

brucellosis retest

VT Dept. Ag Allowed Yes

UT Agriculture Restricted: elk only Yes No Yes Yes

TX Agriculture Allowed Yes No No No

TN Agriculture Restricted: fallow only No No No No

SD Agriculture Allowed Yes No Yes No

SC Wildlife Prohibited n/a n/a n/a n/a

RI Shared “ Yes No Yes Yes

PA Wildlife Allowed Yes No No No

Restricted: new permits rarely Yes No Yes Yes

allowed, no white tail or red deer/

or red deer hybrids

OR Wildlife

OK Agriculture “ Yes No No Yes

OH Agriculture “ Yes No No No

ND Agriculture “ Yes No Yes Yes

NC Wildlife Allowed Yes No No No

NY Agriculture Restricted: no white tail Yes No No Yes

NM Wildlife “ Yes 30 day quarantine Yes Yes

NJ Wildlife “ Yes No No No

NH Wildlife “ Yes No Yes No

NV Agriculture Allowed No No Yes No

90 day quarantine Yes Yes?

pending TB retest

Restricted: no white tail or red deer Yes

(or red deer hybrids) allowed

NE Agriculture

30 day minimum pending Yes Yes

Brucellosis retest

Restricted: Red deer and red deer Yes

hybrids prohibited. White tail deer

west of 100th meridian restricted

MT Shared

MO Agriculture Allowed No No Yes No

Restricted: white tail/mule deer Yes No No No

prohibited

MS Wildlife

MN Agriculture “ Yes No Yes Yes

MI Agriculture Allowed Yes No Yes Yes

Report required when

animal sold or

purchased?

Individual ID

required?

Import quarantine for

animals which meet

guidelines?

Population or

premises data

collected?

Agency with Is farming of cervidae allowed?

jurisdiction

State

VS:CEAH:CEI 20 May 2000
WY Wildlife Prohibited: some elk grandfathered n/a n/a n/a n/a

WI Agriculture “ Yes No Yes No

WV Shared Allowed No No Yes No

Report required when

animal sold or

purchased?

Individual ID

required?

Import quarantine for

animals which meet

guidelines?

Population or

premises data

collected?

Agency with Is farming of cervidae allowed?

jurisdiction

State

VS:CEAH:CEI 21 May 2000
Appendix Table 2 - Captive deer, elk, bison, and llama populations by state, 1999

NC - 65* - * 301 8 1,303 133

NY 7,500* 360* * * 2,500 58 2,329 198

NM - - - - 2,876 9 1,069 99

NJ 999 74 194 7 37 3 551 48

NH - 24* - * 44 3 617 73

NV 0 0 0 0 180 5 1,097 73

NE 675 90 2,010 55 2,581 33 2,467 135

MT 50 5 3,200 78 17,735 18 4,469 288

MO - - - - 2,882 42 2,978 287

MS - - - 2 60 5 232 30

MN 391 21 5,380 151 4,150 74 2,702 225

MI 16,800 550 2,000 170 2,984 50 3,739 332

MA - 24 0 0 96 2 1,015 108

MD - - - - 120 9 787 78

ME - 77 0 0 42 3 567 44

LA - 66* - * 41 3 318 18

KY - 250 - 15 1,763 16 1,533 153

KS - 19 - 41 4,060 56 1,713 186

IA - 201 - 2 1,431 34 2,670 257

IN - - - - 1,081 31 5,077 313

IL - - - - 844 34 2,815 208

ID 174 13 1,684 52 2,898 10 3,461 257

HI 0 0 150 1 220 2 65 6

GA - 9* - * 71 3 1,475 145

FL - - - - 121 6 1,073 115

DE - - - - 101 2 90 6

CT - - - - 93 3 626 78

CO 156 1 7,347 136 5,821 62 6,127 481

CA - 20 0 0 3,680 34 11,323 878

AR - 125 0 0 232 11 869 68

AZ 0 0 - 2 231 6 721 72

AK 250 - 100 - 0 0 205 21

AL 0 0 0 0 72 7 620 56

State No. animals No. premises No. animals No. premises No. animals No. premises No. animals No. premises

Deer Elk Bison Llamas

VS:CEAH:CEI 22 May 2000
WY 0 0 - 1 5,933 30 1,345 105

WI 4,580 645 4,050 191 5,000 115 4,700 457

WV - - - - 159 7 307 45

WA - - 0 0 1,398 29 10,441 816

VA 750 4 0 0 713 12 2,085 180

VT 302 36 197 4 242 4 708 70

UT 0 0 557 21 975 7 1,393 121

TX 90,629* 770* * * 1,370 40 7,254 635

TN - - - - 391 11 1,647 197

SD 250 23 1,735 39 20,727 87 921 67

SC - - - - 15 3 360 32

RI 60 3 2 1 10 3 88 10

PA - 524 - 79 1,587 35 2,929 306

OR 1,569 53 472 15 1,141 11 13,511 946

OK - 68* - * 2,157 19 2,660 263

OH 94 51 284 15 1,656 35 5,453 664

ND 250 22 2,350 71 9,860 60 657 54

State No. animals No. premises No. animals No. premises No. animals No. premises No. animals No. premises

Deer Elk Bison Llamas

(-) State did not have this information; (*) Only available as all cervidae - not differentiated between deer and elk

Sources: CEAH Survey (Cervidae); National Bison Association (Bison); International Lama Registry (Llamas)

VS:CEAH:CEI 23 May 2000
Appendix Table 3 - Number of animal exhibitors, 1999

MO 51 WY 1

MS 14 WI 93

MN 56 WV 12

MI 85 WA 31

MA 53 VA 42

MD 18 VT 2

ME 11 TX 167

LA 18 TN 30

KY 16 SD 19

KS 22 SC 15

IA 36 RI 8

IN 62 PA 93

IL 138 OR 43

ID 16 OK 25

HI 15 OH 65

GA 28 NH 18

FL 246 ND 13

DE 6 NC 31

CT 35 NY 112

CO 29 NM 13

CA 222 NJ 39

AR 26 NV 51

AZ 32 NE 13

AK 10 ND 14

AL 36 MT 18

State No. exhibitors State No. exhibitors

Source: USDA, APHIS, Animal Care, March 1999

VS:CEAH:CEI 24 May 2000