Does Confirmed Pathogen Transfer between Sanctuary Workers and Great Apes Mean that Reintroduction Should not Occur?

Steve Unwin, Ian Robinson, Vanessa Schmidt, Chris Colin, Lisa Ford, Tatyana Humle

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This commentary discusses the findings and conclusions of the paper “Drug resistant human Staphylococcus aureus findings in sanctuary apes and its threat to wild ape populations.” This paper confirms the zoonotic transfer of Staphylococcus aureus in a sanctuary setting. The assertion that this in itself is enough to reconsider the conservation potential of ape reintroduction provides an opportunity to discuss risk analysis of pathogen transmission, following IUCN guidelines, using S. aureus as an example. It is concluded that ape reintroduction projects must have disease risk mitigation strategies that include effective biosecurity protocols and pathogen surveillance. These strategies will assist with creating a well planned and executed reintroduction. This provides one way to enforce habitat protection, to minimise human encroachment and the risks from the illegal wildlife trade. Thus reintroduction must remain a useful tool in the conservation toolbox.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1076-1083
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Primatology
Volume74
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 16 Aug 2012

Keywords

  • Commentary
  • Reintroduction
  • Risk analysis
  • Staphylococcus aureus

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Does Confirmed Pathogen Transfer between Sanctuary Workers and Great Apes Mean that Reintroduction Should not Occur?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this