Addressing Disease Challenges in Domestic Animals and Wildlife

Hoang Thu^*
*Correspondence: Hoang Thu, Department of Animal Infectious Diseases, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44511, Egypt, Email:

Introduction

The health of domestic animals, including pets and livestock, as well as wildlife, is a critical concern worldwide. In an increasingly interconnected world, the spread of diseases between humans, animals, and the environment — often referred to as zoonotic diseases — poses a significant threat to public health, food security, and biodiversity. From infectious diseases like rabies and foot-and-mouth disease to emerging threats like avian influenza and Ebola, combating diseases in both domestic animals and wildlife requires a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach. In this article, we explore the various challenges posed by animal diseases, the interconnectedness between domestic animals and wildlife health, and the strategies being developed to address these issues effectively. Domestic animals and wildlife serve as reservoirs for many of these pathogens, which can spill over to humans through direct or indirect contact. Some zoonotic diseases, like rabies, brucellosis, and avian influenza, have been well-studied and controlled to some extent, while others, like COVID-19 and Ebola, have created global public health crises [1-3].

Description

One of the key challenges in addressing animal diseases is understanding the ways in which domestic animals and wildlife are interconnected in terms of disease transmission. Domesticated animals, such as pets, livestock, and poultry, often live in close proximity to wildlife habitats, making cross-species transmission more likely. Conversely, wildlife species often live in or near human settlements, increasing their risk of exposure to human pathogens. In agricultural regions, the interaction between domestic livestock and wildlife can lead to the spread of diseases like foot-and-mouth disease and bovine tuberculosis. These diseases are particularly problematic in developing countries, where livestock is a major source of livelihood and food security. In some cases, wildlife species like wild boars or deer can transmit diseases to domesticated animals, which in turn can affect farmers and food markets. Domestic pets, including dogs and cats, often come into contact with wildlife, either directly or indirectly. Pets can contract diseases from wildlife and bring them into human households, potentially leading to human exposure. In areas where wildlife populations are abundant, pets can also spread diseases like toxoplasmosis or leptospirosis, which can affect both humans and wildlife. In the wild, many species of animals carry pathogens that do not cause harm to them but can be deadly to other animals or humans. Changing weather patterns, rising temperatures, and shifting ecosystems are creating favorable conditions for disease transmission [4-6].

Conclusion

The challenges of animal disease control and wildlife conservation are global problems that require international cooperation. Global networks and partnerships are essential for monitoring and controlling diseases, especially those that have the potential to spread rapidly across borders. Policies aimed at improving animal health, strengthening disease surveillance systems, and promoting international collaboration are necessary for effectively addressing the challenges of disease in domestic animals and wildlife. Moreover, climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation policies must be integrated into efforts to address animal disease threats, as the two are often deeply interconnected. For example, deer can carry chronic wasting disease, which affects other wildlife and can have serious ecological consequences. Similarly, rodents are often reservoirs for diseases like Hantavirus and plague, which can spill over to humans or domestic animals under certain conditions. Climate change is playing an increasingly significant role in the emergence and spread of diseases affecting both domestic animals and wildlife.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Roumbedakis, Katina, Marina N. Alexandre, José A. Puch and Carlos Rosas, et al. "Short and long-term effects of anesthesia in Octopus maya (cephalopoda, octopodidae) juveniles." Front physiol 11 (2020): 697.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Polese, Gianluca, William Winlow and Anna Di Cosmo. "Dose-dependent effects of the clinical anesthetic isoflurane on Octopus vulgaris: A contribution to cephalopod welfare." J Aquat Anim Health 26(2014): 285-294.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Butler-Struben, Hanna M., Samantha M. Brophy, Nasira A. Johnson and Robyn J. Crook, et al. "In vivo recording of neural and behavioral correlates of anesthesia induction, reversal, and euthanasia in cephalopod molluscs." Front physiol 9 (2018): 109.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Dingerkus, G., and E. D. Santoro. "Cornea regeneration in the Pacific giant octopus, Octopus dofleini, and the common octopus, O. vulgaris." Experientia 37 (1981): 368-369.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Harrison, F. M., and A. W. Martin. "Excretion in the cephalopod, Octopus dofleini." J Exp Biol 42 (1965): 71-98.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Messenger, J. B., M. Nixon and K. P. Ryan. "Magnesium chloride as an anaesthetic for cephalopods." Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol 82 (1985): 203-205.

   Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at