January 2019

 

On December 6, 2018, the WDA Council officially approved the new WDA Asia Pacific Section.  The history of this section’s fruition was detailed in the July Newsletter. The mission of this new section, consistent with the mission of WDA as a whole, is “to acquire, disseminate, and apply knowledge of the health and diseases of wild animals in relation to their biology, conservation, and interactions with humans, domestic animals, and the environment.” The WDA-AP was formed with the cooperation of the Asian Society of Conservation Medicine (ASCM) and the Japanese Society of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine (JSZWM) as well as other related organizations for wildlife and conservation medicine, as well as one health education.

The goals of this new section are many, and they include:

  1.      Promotion of wildlife disease surveillance in Asia and Pacific.       
  2.      Networking for wildlife disease surveillance in Asia and Pacific
  3.      Establishment of special expert groups for wildlife disease surveillance in Asia and Pacific such as Rabies, Avian Influenza, Mycobacteriosis, forensic pathology and others
  4.      Annual joint meeting with ASCM or WDA Australia Section
  5.      Workshops
  6.      Hosting a WDA Annual International Conference in future
The geographic boundaries include all countries and territories in the Asian continent as far West as the borders of India, Mongolia and China as well as all countries and territories located in the Pacific Micronesia region: Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Nauru. The Polynesian Sovereign States – Tonga, Tuvalu, and Somoa – affiliation will be determined later.




Dr. John Fischer, at the microscope.

The Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS) was established in 1957 by the directors of 11 State wildlife agencies, primarily in response to large scale white-tailed deer die-offs across much of the Southeast, due to what we now know was epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD, then called Killer X). It was the first regional center for wildlife disease research and diagnosis in the US. It pre-dated the founding of the now USGS-National Wildlife Health Center by about 18 years.

The current Director of SCWDS, John Fischer retired January 1, 2019, after 18 years in the position.  He is a wildlife biologist and veterinarian with a PhD in pathology. Following are selected portions of a recent conversation with John.


DJ: What did SCWDS look like when it was established under Frank Hayes?    
                                                                                            
JF: It first was called the Southeastern Cooperative Deer Disease Study, but as EHD mortality declined, Frank quickly recognized that the broader array of species and wildlife diseases could be addressed by the regional structure that had been developed to deal with epidemic deer mortality. SCWDS began receiving a Federal appropriation in 1963 through the Dept. of the Interior.  Originally there were 11 States but no territories. USDA-APHIS-Veterinary Services came in as cooperators after SCWDS participated in emergency responses to exotic Newcastle disease in California in the early 1970’s and Avian Influenza in the Chesapeake Bay area in the early 1980’s.   

DJ: What happened when Frank retired?                  
                                                                                              
JF: He was succeeded by Vic Nettles, DVM, PhD who had been one of the lead researchers at SCWDS and he essentially co-directed with Randy Davidson, a PhD parasitologist. They continued the services valued by the States and SCWDS grew to 14 States and Puerto Rico. SCWDS continued receiving support from USDA and USFWS, handling regional disease outbreak investigations, and deer health evaluations on Federal lands under Department of Interior in the region. We saw increasingly sophisticated research and an increased call for training of biologists and professionals. 


DJ: What services does SCWDS provide? 
               
                                                                                                
JF: I’ll hit a few of them as there’s too many to list here.  A general description of SCWDS mission would be providing wildlife health ‘research, diagnostics and support services.’ State wildlife agencies can submit animals and samples for pathologic examination. In return, they get diagnostic reports that include implications for wildlife populations, domestic animal and human health as well as advice on management. SCWDS conducts applied research of wildlife health issues of concern to the members of the cooperative.  Many graduate students who get their practical training and skills at SCWDS end up being hired by State and Federal agencies as wildlife health specialists or veterinarians. In-service training on wildlife diseases and parasites, and other wildlife health-related subjects are provided for biologists of member states. SCWDS also consults with State and Federal wildlife management agencies on policy, public outreach and legal issues. We work within large groups like Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) and United States Animal Health Association (USAHA) to protect and understand health challenges that involve wildlife, people and domestic animals.


DJ: How has SCWDS grown and changed since you became Director in 2000. 
                   
            
JF: We increased from 13 to 18 States; we’ve added some and dropped other programs. Grant funded research plays a much larger role than it did years ago.  Our budget has grown commensurate with new programs. Administratively we were able to add a number of tenure track faculty positions, technical and administrative staff, and graduate student shared positions. This has been very good for recruitment and retention of the finest people working in the field of wildlife health.


DJ: Do regional wildlife health cooperatives provide a stepping stone for States developing their own wildlife health and veterinary programs, or do they act as act as an ‘easy out’ barrier, as some have stated?   
                
                                                                                                                
JF: SCWDS has really increased the recognition and concern about wildlife health/disease. Right now, ten of our member states have their own wildlife veterinarian and/or wildlife disease programs (up from 0 in the beginning and 2 in 2000), so SCWDS certainly doesn’t seem to have retarded employment in, or support for, work in the wildlife health field.  The relationship between SCWDS and wildlife health professionals in our member states is mutually beneficial.


DJ: Could you give some examples of SCWDS accomplishments that have benefitted regional wildlife conservation? 
                                                                           
JF: On a national level our assistance with confirmation of the diagnosis and yearly mapping of outbreaks of hemorrhagic disease (HD) in deer have made a huge contribution to everyone’s understanding of the epidemiology of that disease complex. It has allowed us to recognize exotic serotypes of EHD and bluetongue viruses as well as observe the northern expansion of HD. We have done similar work in diagnosis and coordination of response to Avian Influenza in the Southeastern region, including isolation of some high pathogenicity strains. We have been a regional center for the study of several tick-borne blood parasites that have human health implications. We also work as a regional center for other wildlife parasites, like Baylisascaris, the raccoon roundworm that gets into people and other animals and can be pretty devastating.


DJ: What do you see as the greatest wildlife health challenge we currently face?    
                         

JF: Without a doubt it is chronic wasting disease (CWD). It’s a huge problem that is growing and for which we currently have inadequate laws, policies, and management strategies to contain it. It is complicated by a poor understanding of it by the general populace, and differing information being provided to hunters and others regarding the magnitude of the threat that CWD poses. CWD has the potential to lower wild deer population resilience to other forms of mortality, resulting in decline in deer numbers in heavily infected populations. This has serious consequences for hunting, for people who make a living from hunting-related businesses, and since hunting licenses are a major source of income for many State wildlife agencies, negative implications for wildlife management in general.


DJ: What would you like to say to sum up your feelings about your work with SCWDS?      
                                 

JF: As Director of SCWDS I have accepted many awards, both national and regional, and I have accepted them on behalf of everyone who has worked, studied, or collaborated with SCWDS since its founding in 1957 because they all have contributed to the enviable reputation we enjoy today. I feel lucky, honored and privileged to have been part of, and served, SCWDS and our supporters.


DJ: What now?    
                                                                                                                                           

JF: I have a great passion for wildlife conservation and the people in it, and I plan to work in this area in other capacities. I have too much skin in the game and love for our natural resources to hang it up now.


“SCWDS Mafia,” WDA Conference in Arcata 2002




Jim Mills presents Ellis Greiner with the 2018 WDA Emeritus Award


The WDA Awards Committee is seeking nominations for recipients for two WDA awards to be presented at the 2019 annual meeting. The names and purposes of these awards are:

 a)    The Ed Addison Award is the highest award of the Wildlife Disease Association. Its purpose is to honor a WDA member of long standing who, by his/her outstanding accomplishments in research, teaching, and other activities, including participation in WDA affairs, has made a noteworthy contribution furthering the aims of the WDA.

 b)   The Emeritus Award: Emeritus status is an honorary category of membership awarded by Council to members of the WDA who have retired from their profession and who, in the opinion of Council, have contributed significantly to the study of wildlife diseases. Emeritus Award recipients are full voting members who receive the Journal of Wildlife Diseases without further payment of dues.

These awards are the way the membership recognizes and encourages those WDA members who have “gone the extra mile” to support and contribute to WDA and its goals. Although the award need not be presented every year, we strongly encourage you to consider nominating potential recipients that you believe are deserving. The closing date for receipt of nominations by the Awards Committee is March 15th, 2019. But please don’t wait until the last minute.

  Documentation should include the following for each nomination:

a)     Letter of nomination that will specifically address the selection criteria for the specific award that are not otherwise represented in the candidates             
CV.  Criteria will include:

1.    Ed Addison Award:

a.    Long-standing member of WDA.

b.    Demonstrated significant contributions to the field of wildlife disease research or management.

c.    Significant contributions to WDA

2.     Emeritus Award:

a.     Candidate must be retired.

b.     Demonstrated significant contributions to the field of wildlife disease research or management throughout career.

        b)     Curriculum vitae or equivalent.

Please email nominations and documentation to the Chair of the WDA Awards Committee, Jim Mills (WildlifeDisease@gmail.com) 

What is AFWA?

There are lots of acronyms floating around and some are important, others less so. AFWA is the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and arguably, for wildlife health professionals, it is one of the most influential groups in North America. AFWA is made up of the Directors of all 50 States game and fish (or conservation) agencies, top executives on all Federal agencies with wildlife or land management responsibilities (USGS, USDA, NPS, USFS, BLM, NOAA, USFWS), and some you might not think of (DOD, BIA), and includes representatives of similar Canadian agencies. They meet twice a year to review common or emerging problems, review and set policies, and stay apprised of progress on initiatives they have implemented. One of the permanent committees under AFWA is the Wildlife Health Committee. WDA and AAWV are ‘Affiliate Members’ of AFWA and can comment or pose questions.

For those who are not familiar with AFWA, by way of comparison, it is to wildlife management and conservation in North America a bit like what USAHA is to food animal health and management. However, there are important differences. AFWA does not put on 4-5 day meetings where research and investigative findings are presented by academic researchers. Presentations are by invitation only, but the decisions made can be far reaching. For example, last year AFWA endorsed the findings of the Western State Governors listing ‘white nose syndrome’, chythrid fungus, and feral cats among the top 20 most damaging invasive species. 

AFWA now keeps track of the employment of wildlife health professionals in State agencies (see below). It’s interesting to note that there are now 50, 47 of whom are veterinarians or have a doctorate, up from 5 forty years ago. AFWA seeks input from wildlife health professionals from the State and various Federal Agencies (acronyms above, but particularly USDA-Wildlife Services, United States Geologic Survey, National Park Service, and US Fish and Wildlife Service), as well as Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Northeastern Wildlife Health Cooperative, and Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative. These agencies and cooperatives employ at least another 70 wildlife health professionals and veterinarians, a total of well over 100, whose jobs are to investigate and make recommendations on, and deal with management of health and disease in free-ranging fish and wildlife in North America. 

AFWA deals with many things other than wildlife health. Among these are law enforcement, economic trends, endangered species, public perceptions and trends. It’s important to remember that most of AFWA’ leadership are appointed to their jobs (like most State veterinarians), may not themselves have a strong biological sciences background, and seldom does that include wildlife health.  AFWA tends to move slowly and study issues for a considerable time before acting. And recognizing that many problems are local, or regional, or have political ramifications, AFWA may not step in as a body, but may offer support to member agencies when asked. AFWA is a powerful organization and one that wildlife health professionals should know about. It is the one organization where essentially all government agency decision makers in North America are represented and can be reached.

There are lots of acronyms floating around and some are important, others less so. AFWA is the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and arguably, for wildlife health professionals, it is one of the most influential groups in North America. AFWA is made up of the Directors of all 50 States game and fish (or conservation) agencies, top executives on all Federal agencies with wildlife or land management responsibilities (USGS, USDA, NPS, USFS, BLM, NOAA, USFWS), and some you might not think of (DOD, BIA), and includes representatives of similar Canadian agencies. They meet twice a year to review common or emerging problems, review and set policies, and stay apprised of progress on initiatives they have implemented. One of the permanent committees under AFWA is the Wildlife Health Committee. WDA and AAWV are ‘Affiliate Members’ of AFWA and can comment or pose questions.

For those who are not familiar with AFWA, by way of comparison, it is to wildlife management and conservation in North America a bit like what USAHA is to food animal health and management. However, there are important differences. AFWA does not put on 4-5 day meetings where research and investigative findings are presented by academic researchers. Presentations are by invitation only, but the decisions made can be far reaching. For example, last year AFWA endorsed the findings of the Western State Governors listing ‘white nose syndrome’, chythrid fungus, and feral cats among the top 20 most damaging invasive species. 

AFWA now keeps track of the employment of wildlife health professionals in State agencies (see below). It’s interesting to note that there are now 50, 47 of whom are veterinarians or have a doctorate, up from 5 forty years ago. AFWA seeks input from wildlife health professionals from the State and various Federal Agencies (acronyms above, but particularly USDA-Wildlife Services, United States Geologic Survey, National Park Service, and US Fish and Wildlife Service), as well as Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Northeastern Wildlife Health Cooperative, and Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative. These agencies and cooperatives employ at least another 70 wildlife health professionals and veterinarians, a total of well over 100, whose jobs are to investigate and make recommendations on, and deal with management of health and disease in free-ranging fish and wildlife in North America. 

AFWA deals with many things other than wildlife health. Among these are law enforcement, economic trends, endangered species, public perceptions and trends. It’s important to remember that most of AFWA’ leadership are appointed to their jobs (like most State veterinarians), may not themselves have a strong biological sciences background, and seldom does that include wildlife health.  AFWA tends to move slowly and study issues for a considerable time before acting. And recognizing that many problems are local, or regional, or have political ramifications, AFWA may not step in as a body, but may offer support to member agencies when asked. AFWA is a powerful organization and one that wildlife health professionals should know about. It is the one organization where essentially all government agency decision makers in North America are represented and can be reached.

There are lots of acronyms floating around and some are important, others less so. AFWA is the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and arguably, for wildlife health professionals, it is one of the most influential groups in North America. AFWA is made up of the Directors of all 50 States game and fish (or conservation) agencies, top executives on all Federal agencies with wildlife or land management responsibilities (USGS, USDA, NPS, USFS, BLM, NOAA, USFWS), and some you might not think of (DOD, BIA), and includes representatives of similar Canadian agencies. They meet twice a year to review common or emerging problems, review and set policies, and stay apprised of progress on initiatives they have implemented. One of the permanent committees under AFWA is the Wildlife Health Committee. WDA and AAWV are ‘Affiliate Members’ of AFWA and can comment or pose questions.

For those who are not familiar with AFWA, by way of comparison, it is to wildlife management and conservation in North America a bit like what USAHA is to food animal health and management. However, there are important differences. AFWA does not put on 4-5 day meetings where research and investigative findings are presented by academic researchers. Presentations are by invitation only, but the decisions made can be far reaching. For example, last year AFWA endorsed the findings of the Western State Governors listing ‘white nose syndrome’, chythrid fungus, and feral cats among the top 20 most damaging invasive species. 

AFWA now keeps track of the employment of wildlife health professionals in State agencies (see below). It’s interesting to note that there are now 50, 47 of whom are veterinarians or have a doctorate, up from 5 forty years ago. AFWA seeks input from wildlife health professionals from the State and various Federal Agencies (acronyms above, but particularly USDA-Wildlife Services, United States Geologic Survey, National Park Service, and US Fish and Wildlife Service), as well as Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Northeastern Wildlife Health Cooperative, and Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative. These agencies and cooperatives employ at least another 70 wildlife health professionals and veterinarians, a total of well over 100, whose jobs are to investigate and make recommendations on, and deal with management of health and disease in free-ranging fish and wildlife in North America. 

AFWA deals with many things other than wildlife health. Among these are law enforcement, economic trends, endangered species, public perceptions and trends. It’s important to remember that most of AFWA’ leadership are appointed to their jobs (like most State veterinarians), may not themselves have a strong biological sciences background, and seldom does that include wildlife health.  AFWA tends to move slowly and study issues for a considerable time before acting. And recognizing that many problems are local, or regional, or have political ramifications, AFWA may not step in as a body, but may offer support to member agencies when asked. AFWA is a powerful organization and one that wildlife health professionals should know about. It is the one organization where essentially all government agency decision makers in North America are represented and can be reached.

There are lots of acronyms floating around and some are important, others less so. AFWA is the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and arguably, for wildlife health professionals, it is one of the most influential groups in North America. AFWA is made up of the Directors of all 50 States game and fish (or conservation) agencies, top executives on all Federal agencies with wildlife or land management responsibilities (USGS, USDA, NPS, USFS, BLM, NOAA, USFWS), and some you might not think of (DOD, BIA), and includes representatives of similar Canadian agencies. They meet twice a year to review common or emerging problems, review and set policies, and stay apprised of progress on initiatives they have implemented. One of the permanent committees under AFWA is the Wildlife Health Committee. WDA and AAWV are ‘Affiliate Members’ of AFWA and can comment or pose questions.

For those who are not familiar with AFWA, by way of comparison, it is to wildlife management and conservation in North America a bit like what USAHA is to food animal health and management. However, there are important differences. AFWA does not put on 4-5 day meetings where research and investigative findings are presented by academic researchers. Presentations are by invitation only, but the decisions made can be far reaching. For example, last year AFWA endorsed the findings of the Western State Governors listing ‘white nose syndrome’, chythrid fungus, and feral cats among the top 20 most damaging invasive species.

AFWA now keeps track of the employment of wildlife health professionals in State agencies (see below). It’s interesting to note that there are now 50, 47 of whom are veterinarians or have a doctorate, up from 5 forty years ago. AFWA seeks input from wildlife health professionals from the State and various Federal Agencies (acronyms above, but particularly USDA-Wildlife Services, United States Geologic Survey, National Park Service, and US Fish and Wildlife Service), as well as Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, Northeastern Wildlife Health Cooperative, and Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative. These agencies and cooperatives employ at least another 70 wildlife health professionals and veterinarians, a total of well over 100, whose jobs are to investigate and make recommendations on, and deal with management of health and disease in free-ranging fish and wildlife in North America.

AFWA deals with many things other than wildlife health. Among these are law enforcement, economic trends, endangered species, public perceptions and trends. It’s important to remember that most of AFWA’ leadership are appointed to their jobs (like most State veterinarians), may not themselves have a strong biological sciences background, and seldom does that include wildlife health.  AFWA tends to move slowly and study issues for a considerable time before acting. And recognizing that many problems are local, or regional, or have political ramifications, AFWA may not step in as a body, but may offer support to member agencies when asked. AFWA is a powerful organization and one that wildlife health professionals should know about. It is the one organization where essentially all government agency decision makers in North America are represented and can be reached.

AFWA State Wildlife Vets and Professionals 2018 

Last Name

First Name

State/Providence/Agency

BECKMEN

KIMBERLEE

ALASKA

JUSTICE-ALLEN

ANN

ARIZONA

JENNIFER

BALLARD

ARKANSAS

CLIFFORD

DEANA

CALIFORNIA

MUNK

BRANDON

CALIFORNIA

MILLER

MELISSA

CALIFORNIA

MARET

JOE

CALIFORNIA

KWAK

KEVIN

CALIFORNIA

RICHEY

CHRISTINE

CALIFORNIA

MILLER

MICHAEL

COLORADO

WOLFE

LISA

COLORADO

FOX

KAREN

COLORADO

WOLF

DAN

FLORIDA

SHENDER

LISA

FLORIDA

DEWIT

MARTINE

FLORIDA

CUSACK

LARA

FLORIDA

CUNNINGHAM

MARK

FLORIDA

DUFFORD

DOUG

ILLINOIS

BOEDEKER

NANCY

INDIANA

TBD

 

IOWA

DREW

MARK

IDAHO

DUVALL

FERN

HAWAII

HESTING

SHANE

KANSAS

TBD

 

KENTUCKY

BERRY

RUSTY

LOUSIANA

LACOUR

JIM

LOUISIANA

DRISCOLL

CINDY

MARYLAND

O'BRIEN

DAN

MICHIGAN

STRAKA

KELLY

MICHIGAN

CARSTENSEN

MICHELLE

MINNESOTA

RUSSELL

SHERRI

MISSOURI

BATTEN

JASMINE

MISSOURI

RAMSEY

JENNIFER

MONTANA

NORDEEN

TODD

NEBRASKA

WOLFF

PEREGRINE

NEVADA

 

 

NEW JERSEY

MOWER

KERRY

NEW MEXICO

MARTIN

PATRICK

NEW YORK

BUNTING

ELIZABETH

NEW YORK, CORNELL

Vacant

 

NORTH CAROLINA

BAHNSON

CHARLIE

NORTH DAKOTA

BURCO SPETEN

JULIA

OREGON

REED

AIMEE

OREGON

GILLIN

COLIN

OREGON

BROWN

JUSTIN

PENNSYLVANIA

GROVE

DAN

TENNESEE

SEGARS

AL

SOUTH CAROLINA

DITTMAR

BOB

TEXAS

ROUG

ANNETTE

UTAH

KIRCHGESSNER

MEGAN

VIRGINIA

MANSFIELD

KRISTIN

WASHINGTON

CRUM

JAMES

WEST VIRGINIA

LONG

LINDSEY

WISCONSIN

WOOD

MARY

WYOMING

FISCHER

JOHN

SCWDS (eighteen states)

RUDER

MARK

SCWDS

open

 

NPS

DELIBERTO

TOM

UDSA WS

SLEEMAN

JONATHAN

USGS NWHC

KLEIN

PATRICE

USDA USFS

GIBBS

SAM

USFWS

SCHWANTJE

HELEN

BRITISH COLUMBIA

PYBUS

MARGO

ALBERTA

VANDERKOP

MARY

YUKON

FENTON

HEATHER

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

STASTIAC

INGA

SASKATCHEWAN

The Wildlife Disease Association (WDA) and International Association of Aquatic Animal Medicine share many things. Under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with IAAAM, WDA established an Aquatic Animal Membership classification that allows IAAAM members access to articles in JWD about the species they are most interested in for a nominal fee. Both are open to wildlife health professionals of various degrees and backgrounds, and both strongly support and stress mentoring of students. 


WDA and IAAAM have recently agreed to a new joint award. It is for the best article published in Journal of Wildlife Diseases in any one year on an aquatic animal health problem for which the first author is a student. The award will be $1500 and the winner will be determined by a joint panel of judges. 'Student' is defined as including undergraduate, graduate and professional students but does not include those in post-doctoral positions. The panel of judges has been formed and we hope to be able to announce a winner for 2018 by March of 2019. 


Work and Play

The two of us left the Gros Ventre in earnest, to embark on a two-week period assisting Dr. Mary Wood in her research efforts. While back at the Sybille Canyon Research Center we conducted preliminary evaluations of remotely-operated drones for use in wildlife management activities and evaluated efficacy of commercial devices to measure activity in captive wildlife (elk and bighorn sheep).  Though our remaining time was dedicated to these research efforts, our schedule was speckled with additional activities, including visiting a fish hatchery and assisting with antibiotic injections and necropsy / diagnostic work, gaining hands-on training in sampling and laboratory diagnostic tools for wildlife disease surveillance at the Wyoming Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, and assisting teaching two practical labs on wildlife medicine and immobilization to students at the University of Wyoming. Additionally, we joined a team of wildlife experts acting as advisors, and witnessed first-hand how they provided recommendations on re-introduction and conservation efforts of bighorn sheep.

Julian and Ilya with a scent dog

Conclusion

We rejoined the other students to present our research projects to a professional audience at the Foothill Research Facility, where we formally ended our externship. A sampling of other research projects that were conducted during the externship included:

  • ·         Diagnostic testing recommendations for wild turkeys and other wild galliform species
  • ·         Summary of BAM immobilizations of black bears in Colorado
  • ·         Effects of hemolysis on Yersinia pestis V antibody lateral flow assay
  • ·         Development and validation of a field portable CO2 euthanasia system
  • ·         Physiologic adaptations to elevation in Peromyscus sp. in Rocky Mountain National Park and development of a small mammal capture and handling protocol for the Institutional Care and Use Committee

The RMWVM Externship was unique in its impact on our lives both as budding wildlife veterinarians and as those passionate about learning those things that one will never find in a textbook. Whether in you are in final year of veterinary medical training and wish to embark on an incomparable wildlife medicine training experience, or have never considered this field but are open to finding out what wildlife medicine is all about, we strongly urge you to consider this externship and apply! For application details visit: http://wildlifedisease.org/wda/Portals/0/Education/RMWVE%20brochure_2019.pdf

Extern Group