While there is a push to shut wildlife markets to prevent another bat culinary-based global pandemic, should we be looking at our other wildlife interactions?

There’s no denying that life is pretty strange right now. I’m writing this after returning from my daily permitted exercise of a walk around a London park. A privilege that I, and everyone else in the UK, is at risk of losing as people break the rules to sunbathe. As if six months of constant rain and misery wasn’t enough, mother nature is back at it again except this time, it’s a global pandemic, the likes of which my Geography GCSE did not prepare me for.

The fact that this is happening at all feels like I’m living in a dull yet horrifying dystopian movie. Whether you’re saving the planet by lounging around in a onesie with a tub of ice cream watching reruns of The Office (me) or at work risking your life for crap pay (nurses), I think we can all agree that we don’t want a repeat of this any time soon.

Maybe you’ve volunteered at a wildlife sanctuary, are an avid ecotourism traveller, or a mullet-wearing roadside zoo-owning wild cat breeder; to prevent a future outbreak, we need to look at how we interact with wildlife. From vital wildlife rehabilitation centres to the fight against the illegal wildlife pet trade, risks of future outbreaks exist all over the world.

Coronaviruses from wild animals

COVID-19 is thought to have originated at a wildlife market in China. Although consuming an affected animal may have caused the virus, even just handling one could have caused animal-to-human virus transmission.

The majority of newly-emerging diseases originate from animals (more than 70%), particularly wild animals. Coronaviruses have been identified in many different animals, including civets, raccoons and chickens. A recent study in Italy found that almost 60% of wild hedgehogs sampled were reservoirs for coronaviruses, meaning that these viruses existed naturally in the hedgehogs. However, these viruses were not causing any disease in the hedgehogs (so no social isolation for them, jealous).

Wild animals that live closely alongside humans are most likely to cause a new coronavirus outbreak. Hedgehogs have high population densities and live alongside both wildlife and humans, interacting with both. Coronaviruses have high mutation rates, meaning that they can mutate into a disease-causing variety and jump between different species (as has been the case with COVID-19). Therefore, our close contact with wildlife could cause a future outbreak.

Wildlife Rehabilitation Centres and coronaviruses

Wildlife rehabilitations centres are, without a doubt, vital to animal conservation. Not only do they provide veterinary assistance to injured and sick wildlife, they also enable the return of these animals to the wild so that the species can continue to thrive. The RSPCA estimates that over half a million animal casualties are treated at wildlife rehabilitation centres in the UK each year.

When animals are found to have a low likelihood of survival in the wild, some are held permanently captive, while others are euthanised. For example, one wildlife rehabilitation centre kept less than 1% of animals in captivity and 10-15% had to be euthanised over an 18 year period.

The combination of keeping wildlife that are reservoirs of coronaviruses in rehabilitation facilities and handling them for treatment could potentially result in a future coronavirus outbreak. This is unlikely in accredited rehabilitation centres that follow strict guidelines and laws to prevent harm to both humans and animals, but when individuals or groups informally attempt to rehabilitate wildlife, despite meaning well (I can’t be the only one who, as a kid, dreamt of finding an injured baby bird to nurse back to health and bond with for life), they could potentially cause an outbreak of disease.

Wildlife rehabilitators and coronavirus outbreaks

The illegal wildlife pet trade could be a potential source of future coronavirus outbreaks. Animals captured from the wild for profit are unlikely to be handled with care, and subsequent owners are likely to handle the animals as they would domesticated animals, increasing the likelihood of animal-to-human virus transfer.

When these animals are confiscated, the aim is, where possible, to reintroduce them back into the wild. This inevitably involves contact between humans and animals. By determining the virus reservoirs that may be present in different, commonly confiscated and traded species, it will be easier to safeguard wildlife rehabilitation workers by establishing appropriate procedures for handling and release.

Ecotourism and coronavirus

As we move further towards living in urban developments devoid of wildlife, it is no surprise that the ecotourism industry is booming (present pandemic excluded). The opportunity to get up close and personal with creatures you would usually never get the opportunity to see is a huge draw for a lot of people, including me! But a major downside of the industry is the increased likelihood of a virus jumping from an animal to human host and causing disease. Safaris, bush walks, and adventure sports can bring people into close contact with potential diseases, before they return home and potentially spread them further.

How to Prevent future coronavirus outbreaks from wild animals

Rather than running a mile when we see wild animals or caging ourselves in urban developments, what can we do to limit the likelihood of a future coronavirus outbreak from wild animals?

The most effective course of individual action, and what you’ve definitely heard a lot of lately, is wash your hands! Particularly after coming into contact with any wildlife or their habitat. In 1996, an outbreak of salmonellosis was traced back to a Komodo dragon exhibit at a Colorado zoo. It was found that children who did not become infected were more likely to have washed their hands after touching the wooden barriers surrounding the exhibit.

At a larger scale, we need to stop the encroachment of human development into wild animal habitats, as this is ultimately the source of the problem. However, this is something that conservationists want for a variety of reasons, and when there are economic incentives to continue to do so (for agriculture, mining, timber etc.) this will always be a problem.