Culling of many koalas?! Koalas in danger

[Nikola Chavkosk]

Bad news zoochatters. A very complex problem, disease caused of chlamydia affecting about half of the population of koalas in Australia. The underlying problem may involve infection with Koala retrovirus (KoRV), who weakens the immune system of koalas; marsupial immune system is quite different from that of the rest of the mammals and it's simillar to that in birds; it also shows weaker response to immunization and it's not very long lasting.

I think culling of infected koalas won't solve or eliminate the disease; it may control it for some period. It is thus also important to be established self-sustainable koala populations in zoo, with koalas free from koala retrovirus and Chlamydia.

And the developing vaccine (also therapeutic vaccine), seems that promises a lot.

BBC - Earth - Why we might need to kill Australia's koalas

 

[taun]

I think culling of infected koalas won't solve or eliminate the disease; it may control it for some period.

Why is this your thinking?

 

[Nikola Chavkosk]

Why is this your thinking?

Because a lot of koalas will need to be culled (killed), actually all infected koalas, but that's almost impossible. There will always remain some few infected individuals who will again transmit and disperse the patogenes throughout population, by breeding and by vertical transmission of the agents (retrovirus). Altough several such succesive procedures of eradication, can result with total eradication of the diseases, but doing so, koala population will decrease significantly, to the point that will become endangered or critically endangered, from the least concern status now (that I think should be changed, owning this problem with disease). And my thinking, yes because we studied at collage I am a vet.

Do I answer you?

 

[TeaLovingDave]

There will always remain some few infected individuals who will again transmit and disperse the patogenes throughout population, by breeding and by vertical transmission of the agents (retrovirus).

Chlamydia is a bacterium, not a retrovirus.

 

[Nikola Chavkosk]

Chlamydia is a bacterium, not a retrovirus.

Lol TeaLovingDave I know, I am not so uneducated. I had an average grade at University, of 9.81 of maximum 10.0. I taught on Retrovirus, wich is most certantly underlying infectious cause for weakening of the immune system, and making animal prone to Chlamydia infection.
Because the retrovirus, incorporated in the animal cells (and his genetics in the host genes), is easily transmitted from mother to fetus or to joy in the pouch; or trough gametes from both parents. So the fetus (embryo) from the very begining is already infected with the virus.

 

[Giant Panda]

Lol TeaLovingDave I know, I am not so uneducated. I had an average grade at University, of 9.81 of maximum 10.0. I taught on Retrovirus, wich is most certantly underlying infectious cause for weakening of the immune system, and making animal prone to Chlamydia infection.
Because the retrovirus, incorporated in the animal cells (and his genetics in the host genes), is easily transmitted from mother to fetus or to joy in the pouch.

Only someone with a poor understanding of disease transmission dynamics would post as you have, without a) apparently having read the literature surrounding the policy, or b) understood that said literature will discuss the transmission models used, which will have taken parameters such as number culled and its influence on total population size into account. To put it another way, I think others before you might have had the bright idea of not culling too many.

And lest you require my academic credentials, the pub quiz team I belong to is pretty hot on the science round, which is nearly as relevant as what you bring to the table.

 

[Nikola Chavkosk]

Only someone with a poor understanding of disease transmission dynamics would post as you have, without a) apparently having read the literature surrounding the policy, or b) understood that said literature will discuss the transmission models used, which will have taken parameters such as number culled and its influence on total population size into account. To put it another way, I think others before you might have had the bright idea of not culling too many.

And lest you require my academic credentials, the pub quiz team I belong to is pretty hot on the science round, which is nearly as relevant as what you bring to the table.

Well I do not declared myself as someone with high understanding of disease transmission dynamics; after all that's is a job of an epidemiologist, wich I am not.

And culling not so many from the infected koalas, won't solve the problem. I don't wrote that it should be culled some part of the infected koalas. Either all or none.

If you think on thread title, it is just information taken from the above-listed link, it's not mine opinion. Please visit the link. It is in plan, to cull infected koalas (and they are about half of the population, hence they are many).

 

[jayjds2]

If you don't want the koalas to be culled, what do you think they should do?

 

[Nikola Chavkosk]

If you don't want the koalas to be culled, what do you think they should do?

Maybe isolating the healthy ones in fenced forest, and vaccinating all of them, and vaccinating infected one outside fenced protected areas? But this would be efficient for eradication of Chlamydia only, not for Koala retrovirus,, and still the culling may be one of the best solutions, yet. I the original post, I don't wanted to wrote that I am against culling all of them, just I wanted to present that it may not be successfull solution.

Please note that culling programme for Tasmanian devil was not successfull, in atempt for eradication of Devil facial tumor disease.

 

[Nikola Chavkosk]

Or even better solution, establishing several nuceluses of fenced forest, and inhabiting such areas only with koalas free from Koala retrovirus and Chlamydia, taken from various regions for better genetic representation in the enclosed population, and periodical translocations/exchanges with koalas from other fenced forest areas. The infected ones to remain otuside such fenced forest and ultimatively to be culled.

 

[Hix]

I think this discussion is moot to a degree. We've known about chlamydia in koalas for almost 30 years now, it was originally called "wet bottom disease", and it was studied in captive koalas as it was present in many captive populations. It appears many koalas have the bacterium but don't manifest any of the disease symptoms until the animals become stressed (and in the wild that often happens with habitat destruction). There are already identified chlamydia free populations (the one on French Island being rather well-known and used as a source for koalas translocated to the mainland).

The situation is being managed and I haven't heard anything lately that suggests the koalas are currently in dire straits (apart from the usual crap from the non-scientific koala-huggers).



Hix

 

[Nikola Chavkosk]

I think this discussion is moot to a degree. We've known about chlamydia in koalas for almost 30 years now, it was originally called "wet bottom disease", and it was studied in captive koalas as it was present in many captive populations. It appears many koalas have the bacterium but don't manifest any of the disease symptoms until the animals become stressed (and in the wild that often happens with habitat destruction). There are already identified chlamydia free populations (the one on French Island being rather well-known and used as a source for koalas translocated to the mainland).

The situation is being managed and I haven't heard anything lately that suggests the koalas are currently in dire straits (apart from the usual crap from the non-scientific koala-huggers).



Hix

Hix just to add that Koalas who manifest clinical chlamydiosis, most of them are infected with Koala retrovirus; those who are not infected with KoRV, rarely display clinical chlamydiosis. KoRV is immunosupresive - like Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).