Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
together macaques with people who are “macaque naïve,” and thus more likely
than local people to behave in a manner that provokes macaque aggression,
with concomitant risk of injury and transmission of infectious agents. From the
standpoint of the macaques' health, temples with macaques constitute a loca-
tion where humans from all corners of the globe converge, bearing pathogens,
some of which may be novel to the macaques. Introducing novel pathogens to
immunologically naïve macaque populations poses a significant health risk for
them and makes advisable the implementation of measures to decrease physical
contact and proximity between macaques and visitors. Educational signboards
are an important feature of this effort, but there is no substitute for the enforce-
ment of common-sense proscriptions against feeding and teasing macaques.
Live animal markets, as they tend to bring multiple animal species together
in close proximity and in confined space, provide pathogens with unique
opportunities. Animals may be ill and immunocompromised, increasing both
the “availability” of pathogens in the environment and the likelihood that indi-
viduals are susceptible to disease. Markets may act as “mixing pots” where
infectious agents from one animal reservoir can come into contact with a host
species it would not normally find in a “natural” setting. Such a scenario is
thought to have initiated the SARS epidemic in 2002. Therefore, regular health
monitoring of animal populations, including non-human primates, as well as
people who work at pet markets, is a logical strategy for detecting new patterns
of disease, including the emergence of new diseases.
Pet owners, and those who own “performing monkeys,” are unique in the
long-term, close contact they typically have with macaques (Jones-Engel
et al
.,
2006
; Schillaci
et al
.,
2006
; Schillaci
et al
.,
2008
). It is the rule, rather than the
exception, for a pet owner to have been bitten at some point by his/her pet. Pets
and their owners likely “share” a broad range of infections, including pathogens
that are transmitted by respiratory route, oral/fecal and parenteral transmission.
Pets may have additional significance as a potential mechanism for transmit-
ting pathogens between human populations and free-ranging, including unhab-
ituated, groups of macaques. Pet macaques are typically acquired when they are
very young, at a stage when they are cute and unthreatening. As the macaque
matures, developing strength and large teeth, pet owners often are no longer
interested in keeping the pet and may sell, kill, or release it. In the latter case, a
pet harboring infectious agents acquired from the people with whom it has lived
may come into contact with and transmit pathogens to free-ranging macaques.
Free-ranging, especially unhabituated animals may be immunologically “naïve”
to human pathogens, and therefore vulnerable to these pathogens. Seen in this
light, pet ownership is a potentially problematic practice, as pets may act as
“pathogen conduits” from humans to free-ranging macaques.
