WILDEBEEST AND THE BOVINE MALIGNANT CATARRHAL
(SNOTSIEKTE) ISSUE – A GAME RANCHERS PERSPECTIVE
FEVER
Article by Dr Ulf Tubbesing, veterinarian, game rancher and game dealer. Your
comments, suggestions and questions concerning the wildlife industry in Namibia will be
appreciated. Contact me at ulf@supergamedealers.com; Telephone 061-257272 or fax
061-257274
INTRODUCTION
Bovine malignant catarrhal fever (BMC, snotsiekte) is a serious herpes virus infection
with a world wide distribution. It affects cattle as well as some wild ruminant species
whilst wildebeest species, as well as domestic sheep (different strain of the virus) are
asymptomatic carriers of the disease.
The disease is characterised by a high fever, severe inflammation of the mucosa lining
the mouth and upper intestinal tract, nose and eyes, causing nasal discharge, infection of
the eyes, and salivation. Occasionally nervous symptoms, diarrhoea, skin lesions and
arthritis are also seen. It usually affects only a small number of animals at a time but
results in high percentage mortality amongst infected animals.
Figure 1: A BMC infected bovine (From Dept of infectious Diseases, Onderstepoort
Veterinary Faculty, University of Pretoria)
In 1987 the Namibian Directorate of Veterinary Services issued revised regulations
aimed at minimising the risk of BMC outbreaks in cattle. These, in a nutshell were:
 All movement of wildebeest had to be to and from specified wildebeest camps
certified by the department. All wildebeest had to be contained within these
camps.
 Specific fencing requirements were laid down for wildebeest camps (7 strands of
wire etc.)
 All wildebeest had to be separated from neighbouring properties as well as other
wildebeest populations (?) by a second fence at least 10 m away from the first in
an attempt of providing an effective disease buffer zone.
 No wildebeest may be moved without a permit issued by Veterinary Services.
The regulations make no mention of sheep and their role in the disease, nor are any
control measures in place concerning sheep – cattle contact. Even though current
scientific knowledge about BMC clearly indicates that the above regulations are outdated,
inefficient and not based on sound scientific facts, they are still enforced in Namibia.
Many game ranchers prefer to erect their wildebeest camp in one corner of their farm
since this minimises the ecological impact to the rest of their property. Due to cost
constraints these camps are often relatively small and are inadvertently over stocked to
allow for a fair trophy animal production.
This situation is stressful for the wildebeest, increasing virus excretion and the risk of
infection to cattle. In addition it forces closer contact with cattle in adjacent camps. It is
thus highly likely that these wildebeest camps may in fact increase the risk of BMC
outbreaks on neighbouring farms.
THE WILDEBEEST CAMP (10 M) PARADOX
.
Rotational
grazing
CATTLE
RANCH
&
&& $ $
& $ $
&& $
Rotational
grazing
10 000 ha GAME
RANCH WITH
1000 ha
WILDEBEEST
CAMP
CATTLE
(n = 100; 1:10 ha)
RANCH
10 000 ha GAME
RANCH - NO
&
&&&
&&&&&
&&&
WILDEBEEST
CAMP
(n = 200; 1:50 ha)
$ $
$ $ $ $ $
$ $ $
Figure 2: The 10 m double fence paradox.
SOME FACTS ABOUT BMC IN GENERAL
Unfortunately there are still huge gaps in our understanding of this disease. This, as well
as the relative economic unimportance of BMC (thus limited funding available for
research) explains why no effective vaccine is available to protect cattle from the disease.
The following are vital facts that need to be considered if we want to minimise BMC
outbreaks and limit conflict situations between game and cattle ranchers:
 BMC has a world wide distribution, wildebeest not. No other country outside the
Southern African region has control measures in place for BMC.
 A BMC outbreak poses no threat to our meat export market.
 The symptoms of the disease are in no way diagnostic, however, there are reliable
laboratory tests available that can positively identify BMC infected animals and
even differentiate between BMC of wildebeest and sheep origin.
 The exact mode(s) of disease transmission is not yet clear (direct contact and/or
insect transmission). The fact that BMC transmission easily happens over a
distance of up to 1000 m strongly suggests some vector involvement. The 10 m
buffer zone is thus a laughable control measure.
 Transmission between cattle does not happen.
 Wildebeest (both blue and black) as well as sheep harbour strains of the virus
capable of causing BMC. Many cattle farmers keep sheep on their farms. Red
hartebeest and goats are also asymptomatic carriers but we don’t know if they
contribute to disease in cattle.
 Stress (esp. around calving) plays an important role in increasing susceptibility of
cattle to BMC while it also increases virus shedding in nasal secretions by carriers
(wildebeest and sheep).
 BMC has a relatively long incubation period (time of exposure till first signs of
disease) of 3-7 weeks or longer.
 In southern Africa 2 distinct outbreak peaks have been recorded.
1. Following wildebeest calving in December – February, BMC is often noted in
cattle in January – April. This outbreak is usually associated with close
wildebeest – cattle contact.
2. A second outbreak peak, which is not associated with close wildebeest – cattle
contact is from mid September – November. This peak may well be associated
with lambing of sheep in August – November.
THE SITUTION IN NAMIBIA
Due to the dramatic increase in game ranching in Namibia, the incidence of BMC has
risen substantially over the last 2 decades. Since the above regulations were introduced,
the number of farms with registered wildebeest camps has risen from 23 to well over 325.
Over the past 7 years there have been in average 4 BMC outbreaks annually, with a total
of only 11 mortalities (averaged out) per year. (Statistics supplied by the Directorate of
Veterinary Services).
Only few of these “outbreaks” have been confirmed as BMC cases by laboratory tests
and in even fewer cases has a differentiation been made between BMC of wildebeest or
sheep origin. There must be at least 20 other unregulated diseases and conditions causing
higher annual mortalities in cattle than this disease.
PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED BY GAME FARMERS
The fact that the regulation only concerns wildebeest and not sheep is discriminatory
against the game ranching industry. This outdated regulation has serious financial
repercussions on this promising Namibian farming sector. Some of the disadvantages to
game ranchers are:
 Exorbitant costs of erecting double fences often results in small wildebeest camps
being erected.
 As a result of the above, many farmers choose not to introduce wildebeest to their
farms. This drastically reduces the market value for life wildebeest while, at the
same time it results in a relative shortage in availability of wildebeest trophies, yet
another loss in income.
 Tourists expect a game ranch to be an open, unfenced area with free roaming
game. Wildebeest camps obviously distract from this ideal.
 Game frequently gets trapped between these fences and dies of thirst and
starvation.
Figure 2: Red hartebeest trapped between a game fence and 10 m buffer fence
succumbed to thirst and starvation
The veterinary regulations result in direct costs and losses to the game ranching industry,
which are totally out of proportion to the importance of the disease and the annual losses
due to BMC experienced by cattle farmers.
ALTERNATIVE PREVENTATIVE MEASURES
I would like to propose an alternative, three pronged approach towards minimising stock
losses due to BMC. This approach is based on current knowledge of the disease and only
requires the cooperation of neighbours and no expensive double fences.
 Wildebeest management should strive towards stress avoidance and minimising
the risk of animals breaking out of game ranches. This can be achieved by
keeping social structures in tact and avoiding overstocking i.e. allow the
wildebeest free range on a suitably sized farm rather than confining them to a
small camp where fights between bulls are likely to cause break outs. Further,
avoid manipulations to wildebeest herds in the first four months after calving.
 Cattle management should aim at stress avoidance (proper parasite control and
nutrition etc.) while minimising the risk of exposure to wildebeest during the high
risk periods through proper planning of rotational grazing.
 Proper habitat management on both game and adjacent cattle farms can reduce the
wildebeest – cattle contact and thus the risk of BMC outbreaks significantly.
1. Avoid over stocking and starvation stress. This will also reduce the risk of
break outs.
2. Avoid placing water holes, dams and posts close to your border.
3. Wildebeest are strict grazers that avoid dense bush and prefer open grassland.
By de-bushing areas away from border fences one can create grass plains
which will daw the wildebeest away from common borders with cattle farms.
4. Wildebeest love areas of fresh grass growth, e.g. after a fire or after mowing
grass. Controlled veld burns or grass cutting in game farm areas close to a
border fence with a cattle farm should thus ideally be coordinated with the
neighbour and his rotational grazing schedule.
5. The responsibility of maintaining border fences in a good state of repair
should be shared between neighbours even if the border fence happens to be a
game proof fence erected by the game rancher.
 More research leading to a better understanding of BMC will hopefully soon
enable us to vaccinate cattle against the disease and to apply vector control to
further minimise the risk of an outbreak.
To address the issue of financial compensation for stock losses, a national fund should be
generated (each farmer with wildebeest on his farm should make a compulsory annual
contribution of say N$ 1000.00 to this fund). A cattle farmer who suffers stock losses
proven to be due to BMC of wildebeest origin can then submit a claim directly to the
fund administrators, much like an insurance claim.
The above measures should go a long way towards reducing BMC in Namibia and
smoothing the sometimes strained neighbourly relations between cattle and game
ranchers.
CONCLUSION
The wildlife industry makes a very significant and growing contribution to Namibia’s
GDP. It is a major job creator and a source of affordable protein to feed the poor. Since
the game ranching industry primarily caters for the tourist, it is a major earner of foreign
currency. Just like cattle, wildlife too must be viewed as a national asset and not a
liability.
It is high time that the Directorate Veterinary Services reviews the existing regulations.
They are not only outdated and ineffective but are also a source of misinformation to the
farmers, resulting in many conflict situations between game and cattle ranchers.
Alternative, cheaper, ecologically sound and likely more efficient solutions do exist and
should be applied.