As front line responders, wildlife Rehabilitators are both potentially vulnerable, should there be a pandemic of mutated avian influenza; and are in a key position to spot trends in the spread of the disease in wildlife. To that end, what follows is a primer on the H5N1 avian influenza A. Additional information, as it increases, can be found on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization websites. (Both are readily available by "Googling" them.)

There have been over 100 confirmed human infections of bird flu, but only a few that are known to have been transmitted from human to human. But all influenza A viruses are known to mutate frequently and somewhat easily, so the potential of a human pandemic is always present. In humans, bird flu presents typical flu symptoms, including fever, cough, sore throat and muscle aches. But unlike many other type A influenzas, bird flu frequently leads to virulent and often fatal complications including eye infections, pneumonia and severe respiratory distress, as well as other life-threatening complications.

There is no approved vaccine for bird flu, and current flu vaccines are ineffective on H5N1. Two drugs currently available, oseltamivir and zanamivir (Tamiflu and Relenza) can mitigate the symptoms of the disease if taken early in onset--ideally within 48 hours of exposure; however, indiscriminate or improper use of either can diminish its effectiveness. And if widely used, the danger exists of the development of resistant flu strains, as has happened in the past with amantadine and rimantadine, to which bird flu is already resistant.

The H5N1 virus is highly contagious among birds, including many species of migratory birds. Thus the disease is rapidly spreading world-wide among both wild birds and cultivated poultry. There have been major outbreaks in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam. Additional outbreaks have recently been reported in Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Russia, Turkey and Romania. As many migratory birds reside in Africa, major outbreaks are anticipated on that continent. It is probably only a matter of time until the flu reaches the North American continent in its current highly pathogenic form.

Asian outbreaks are abetted by the huge and largely unregulated and primitive poultry industry. In the West, vaccination, and other prophylactic practices are being pujt into place to limit exposure of farmed birds.

The frightening fact is that never before in the history of this disease have so many countries been simultaneously affected, resulting in the loss of so many birds. The virus is considered extremely tenacious. For example, despite the destruction of an estimated 150 million birds, the virus is now considered endemic throughout many Asian countries. Meaningful control of the virus in poultry will take several years, at best.


H5N1 poses two potential risks to human health. The first is the risk of direct infection from poultry to humans, resulting in very severe disease. Unlike other type A bird flues in the past, whose symptoms in trans-human contact have been relatively mild, H5N1 presents unusually severe, aggressive, and often fatal symptoms, including viral pneumonia, and multi-organ failure. The fatality rate exceeds 50% of known cases.

The second risk, of course, is the potential of a mutant strain that can be transmitted from human to human. Such a change would likely begin a world-wide pandemic, with a potentially catastrophic casualty rate that would overwhelm the health-care infrastructure of even highly developed nations.

Infection is currently spread by direct contact with birds and their feces. Unfortunately, Asia, the major locus of the disease, presents many eradication problems. Many houses keep small flocks that roam freely, rather than large "factory" models found in the West. And because many Asian households depend on the birds for food and income, large scale slaughter of infected stock is resisted; and infected birds are frequently sold and consumed when signs of illness appear in a flock. There is strong cultural and economic resistance to change in these practices.

It should be noted that the virus is easily killed by heat, and any properly cooked (i.e. no "pink meat") can be assumed to be virus free. Eggs, too, can be consumed safely; however, in infected regions, yokes should be fully cooked (i.e. not "runny").


The virus can improve its transmissibility among humans through two mechanisms: the first is a "reassortment" event, in which genetic material is exchanged between human and avian viruses during co-infection of a human or pig, resulting in a fully transmissible pandemic virus and a sudden explosion of cases.

The second mechanism is the more gradual process of adaptive mutation, expressed initially as small clusters of human cases, with some evidence of human-to-human infection. This onset would likely be gradual, allowing more time for preventive action.

While there is currently no sign of pandemic outbreak, it must be noted that each case of human cases of bird flu increases virus' opportunity to improve its transmissibility in humans. It is a time bomb waiting to detonate. Pandemics in the past have reached 25-35% of total population. The world could expect 2 to 7.4 million deaths in a mild outbreak. However, the 1918 pandemic is probably a more apposite model, and killed up to 100 million people.


The most important signal comes when clusters of patients with clinical symptoms of influenza, closely related in time and place, are detected. This suggests human-to-human transmission. Similarly, detection in health care workers caring for H5N1 patients would suggest similar transmission. Detection of such events should compel immediate investigation of every possible case to confirm the diagnosis, identify the source, and determine whether human-to-human transmission is occurring. WHO has repeatedly asked affected countries to share viruses with the international research community so corroboration studies of can be done and to spot genetic changes indicative of an improved ability to infect humans.


Oliver Sacks, the great neurologist, and author of "Awkenings," about the "sleepy sickness" that followed the 1918 pandemic, writes in the New York Times that an epidemic of encephalitis lethargica is likely to follow a world-wide pandemic after about a year. Common symptoms are lethargy, insomnia, frenzy, sometimes paralysis and mental disorders. But no funds have been appropriated to try to better understand the relationship of this disease and pandemic influenza.


No one knows. We know that elimination of the virus from birds in any realistic future is highly improbable. WHO will have a stockpile of anti-viral medications for 3 million doses by early 2006, available prophylactically at the start of an outbreak to reduce the risk that a fully transmissible virus will emerge, or at least delay its international spread. However, again, there is currently no vaccine.


Alas, not in the slightest. After a two year warning, almost no meaningful measures have been taken on a world-wide scale. Only 40 countries have even begun to develop preparedness plans. Only 30 countries have begun to stockpile antiviral drugs for national use at the start of a pandemic, and manufacturers are woefully unprepared to produce these drugs in remotely sufficient quantities. If this trend continues, most developing countries will have no access to vaccines and antiviral drugs throughout the duration of a pandemic.


While President Bush has promised a "crash program" for vaccines, the facts contradict his words. The date for stockpiling enough vaccine for 20 million people is 2009. The date for converting the drug industry to more modern manufacturing techniques that could expand production in an emergency is 2010. If a pandemic occurs before then, the nation's health care system will be overwhelmed. The American program consists mainly of a "laundry list" of things that state and local health agencies and hospitals should consider in getting ready. Health care experts have determined this list to be "disturbingly incomplete as a guide to action." Moreover, the cost of these programs resides with the states, and not the federal government. The chain of command is unclear, with many agencies and multiple levels of government playing roles. (See the FEMA model, and that of Homeland Security.)

To make matters worse, the bird flu czar is another "Brownie"--a man named Stewart Simonson--formerly an Amtrak lawyer with no public health experience whatever, nor any in bioterrorism, epidemics, epidemiology, public health, or even management. When questioned about this by a congressional sub-committee, he replied, "We're learning as we go." No doubt he'll do a heckava job.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission continue to ballyhoo the existence of the ivory-billed woodpecker--potentially a boon to tourism and land values in the region where it is claimed to have been spotted. Vast amounts of funds have been diverted from ongoing environmental projects to staff the search project for the evanescent bird. The services noted above, in addition to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, the Nature Conservancy and Audubon Arkansas are all part of the effort. They have fielded a team of twenty-two search team leaders leading more than 100 volunteers. (That yields a ratio of one leader for every 4.5 volunteers; which, for government agencies, sounds about right.)

To make sure everybody knows about this effort, the Recovery Team Partners hosted reporters and photographers from 25 media outlets including The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, Reuters, the Associated Press, NPR, and lots of TV stations over the period of December 12-24, 2005.

In addition "The Call of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker Celebration" is being held at the Brinkley, Ark. Convention Center Feb. 23-25. People who have purported to have seen the critter will appear, along with sales exhibits by such participants as Leica, Eagle Optics and Zeiss. There will be bird watching tours, a vendor expo, book signings, and the ever-popular southern Fish Fry with live music.

One person who will probably not be invited to sign his book is Dr. Jerome Jackson, perhaps the world's leading expert on the ivory-billed woodpecker, and professor or ornithology at Florida Gulf Coast University. (He was also a highly acclaimed feature speaker at last year's FWRA conference, where he DID sign his book.) Originally a part of the search team, he became disenchanted with the hoopla based on what he believes to be faulty evidence; and for being the skunk at the garden party, he was "separated" from the effort to locate and promote the elusive creature.

Now, in a fifteen page article published in The Auk, a quarterly ornithology journal published by the American Ornithologists' Union, and reported in the New York Times, Jackson condemns the "rush to publication" of an article in Science, published online in April 2005. He also criticizes publicity about the sighting by conservation organizations and the Interior Department as the "selling" of the ivory bill.

Jackson maintains that nobody has provided scientific evidence of any kind that would confirm the existence of this bird, despite claims to the contrary. Jackson called the heretofore efforts "Faith-Based Ornithology." As he demonstrated in his talk at FWRA, the video-tape of the alleged ivory-billed woodpecker actually shows a pileated woodpecker. The ostensible sound of the ivory-billed woodpecker follows the sound pattern of a local jay. These are the only tangible evidence yet provided for the existence of this ostensibly extinct bird.

However, while Jackson feels that no valid evidence has yet been provided to confirm the existence of the bird, neither has there been absolute evidence disproving its existence. (Of course, proving a negative is virtually impossible.) Therefore, true to sound scientific principles, Jackson said, "I am in no way saying that the ivory bills are not out there. I really hope they are." But nothing, so far, has convinced him of their existence. Therefore, at the current time, despite all the hoopla, the ivory-billed woodpecker is currently right up there with the Sasquatch and weapons of mass destruction.

Given Jackson's reputation, vs. folks who gave you FEMA, Creation Science, the war on terror, and the rebuilding of New Orleans, whose "evidence" do YOU trust?

We always tell people to observe seemingly abandoned wildlife for at least 24 hours, if possible, before intervening. We know that many of the cases brought to rehabilitators are not actually "orphans." For example, birds are supposed to fall out of nests as they grow too big for them. Parents will feed them on the branches.

In an article in the May 9, 2006 issue of the New York Times on the presence of cannibalism, abuse, abandonment and neglect which is routine among many animal species (this was a Mothers' Day Special, no less!), one example seemed particularly relevant to this teaching point.

In the category called "phantom mothers," the author, Natalie Angier, awarded first prize to the rabbit. According to the recent research of Robyn Hudson, of the National University of Mexico, the rabbit has developed the perfect defense against being at the bottom of the food chain, and thus, the preferred dinner, of many species. Predators follow animals to their lairs. Thus the less time spend in the lair, the lower the chance that they and their offspring will fall victim to predation.

Rabbits live in complex burrows in which pregnant females build little nests lined with grass and fur. Birthing takes no more than eight minutes to produce up to ten pups. When finished, the mother immediately leaves the nest and the naked, blind newborns, and closes up the entrance. Over the next twenty-five days, the mother will return to the nest for no more than two minutes a day, during which time she crouches over the pups, and delivers highly pressurized milk to the frantically nursing offspring.

On the 26th day, the young are abandoned completely; they are left to crawl from the nest and make their way in the world on their own. Mom's gone for good.

The moral? Most, if not all unattended infant rabbits are not abandoned, especially if they are tiny. Let them be. Mom's out shopping. And Dad? Haven't seen hide nor hare of him.

In this era of sprawl and rapid development, we often put our hopes in pro-environmental legislation. But sometimes well-meaning laws can have either an unintended negative consequences, or may be improperly applied or enforced.

For example, well-meaning mandated preserve areas in developed areas, result in isolated "islands" that inhibit migration and territorial foraging of the species they are designed to protect. The result as been unhealthy inbreeding, resulting in genetic mutation, and weakening of species. We have found that many species need large contiguous areas in order to thrive. But the laws do not provide for this continuity; and, indeed, discourages it.

Another misapplied and misunderstood concept is "mitigation." After years of dredging, draining, and filling swamps and wetlands for growth, the scientific community began to convince the public of the essential need for these wetlands for water filtration, species propagation, climate control, etc. The result was the Clean Water Act, and several Florida laws, that were designed to protect these vital areas, and discourage filling in and building on wetlands and swamp areas.

However, no laws, including the Clean Water acts, are "self executing." That is, their application is up to local authorities and the interpretation of local courts. Despite the laws, dredging and filling of environmentally sensitive areas continues almost unabated in Florida. How does this continue to happen?

The answer is "mitigation." This was a quid pro quo designed to appease the building trades, and to ensure a "no net loss" of wetlands through the replacement of ecological resources proposed to be lost in a dredge and fill project. Mitigation is not supposed to be considered until the applicant has demonstrated that there is no alternative non-wetland site available for the proposed project, and then demonstrated avoidance and minimization of all wetland destruction. But permit after permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (who are charged with administering the Clean Water Act) fail to reveal any demonstration of compliance with the Act. In fact, the Corps virtually never rejects a permit application.

In addition, even when mitigation is granted, there are no objective standards for determining what constitutes appropriate mitigation. In Florida, anything goes. Stormwater retention pits ("fake lakes") can count as mitigation. Wetlands preserved in one application can be allocated for removal in another application. Wetlands left on site are counted as mitigation, even thoug their quality and function is diminished by the surrounding dredge and fill. High value mature wetlands are sacrificed and replaced by low function wetlands in far away watersheds.

In 2000, the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability issued a report saying that mitigation was not working in Florida. Dredge and fill projects continue unabated--all the more horrifying since we now know the negative effects of wetland destruction. Instead, the laws are interpreted and enforced by an army of consultants, bureaucrats, lobbyists, lawyers, and industries dedicated to thwarting the standardization of, and firm enforcement of wetland protection rules in Florida.

Until the citizenry decides that Florida's environmental health and ecological uniqueness is at least as important as its unbridled growth, and demands true enforcement of the environmental laws, the forces of development will continue to hide behind those laws, claiming "compliance," while the natural environment continues to vanish.

We have long taken the position that the use of toxic chemicals to control weeds, promote growth, and eliminate insect and animal pests, has a multiplying and cascading effect on the environment. We realize that people want green lawns, healthy trees and plants, and a pest-free environment. However, there are natural ways to achieve these goals that have far less negative impact on the environment. If individuals and organizations (such as homeowners associations and golf course communities) committed to employing natural (or less toxic) solutions to these problems, we would all benefit.

Agricultural endeavors and individuals wishing to keep unwanted birds away might wish to consider garlic! In preliminary findings published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, researchers found that the more garlic they added to the bowls of caged European starlings, the less the birds ate.

Professor Eric Block, of the State University of New York at Albany, says that garlic products can be used as a natural, nontoxic bird repellent, keeping birds away from valuable crops and even sensitive areas such as airport runways. A co-researcher reported that birds who ate food laced with garlic reacted in much the same way humans do when they eat hot peppers.

(Of course, this method may not work on Mexican or Italian birds.)


For those wishing to attract beautiful or beneficial birds, avoid the bird feeder. We have stated before that bird feeders often cause more problems than they solve: feeder food is not a balanced diet, and birds will neglect foraging for the requisite food needed for health. Spilled seed attracts nuisance animals. Birds at feeders are easy prey for hawks and cats. Feeder-fed birds may not migrate, even locally, and thus damage the gene pool. And feed is expensive!

But there are other ways to attract birds that are inexpensive and beneficial. In fact, the natural way may improve your property values as much as 20%--well above the cost of implementing it. The way is to add bird-friendly plants to your property.

While trees are a particularly great addition. there is much more you can do. Planning is the key to success: First, find out what birds frequent your area and in what seasons. This will determine your choice of plants. These should fit into your natural topography. Many of these plants require little care (and thus keep you out of the birds' territory and save your back). Both bird and landscaping pros say that indigenous (native) plants are best. They do not harm the environment in the ways exotic plants do, and birds and other wildlife are best adapted to them. Native plants are also most resistant to local weather and insects.

The goal is to have a variety of flowering trees and/or shrubs. The more diversity you have, the greater variety of birds you will attract. These might include woody trees, shrubs, and perennial and annual flowers. They can provide continual food sources, and shelter. If you are friendly with your neighbors, you can cluster plants at the back of your property line, and encourage your neighbor to plant similarly on the other side to create a wider bird zone.

Of course, if you are attracting birds, don't forget water. A small bird bath or artificial pond will do. But make sure it is filled regularly.

Finally, if you want a totally bird-friendly environment, consider bird houses as well.

Your local agricultural extension service, or a number of local nurseries specializing in native plants can help you plan your bird (and butterfly)-friendly environment. It's a great win/win for you and your environment. Internet sites can provide you with additional suggestions. Try www.audubon.com.