by Ed Neal, Essex BOH Chairman
On Tuesday, October 6, 1998, DPH informed me that a diseased emu from a farm in Essex had tested positive for Eastern Equine Encephalitis, a disease which can be fatal in humans. While the risk of infection to humans was low due to the prevailing cold temperatures and low mosquito activity, he reported that there was some potential risk to humans. Accordingly, I contacted the local newspaper and succeeded in having a notice published that evening informing people that they should take precautions against mosquito bites.
From Tuesday until Thursday I heard nothing more from DPH about emus, but that morning I received a call from the Gloucester Daily Times who informed me that there were now seven dead birds and wanted to know if I knew any more about the incident. I told her that I was unaware of the death of additional animals but that the degree of threat to the human population remained the same whether there was one or many birds infected. Further, I informed her that the proper precautions also remained the same. My office also received a call from a concerned citizen questioning the Town’s policy on mosquito control. Knowing that Essex had dropped out of the local mosquito control program over a decade before, I called DPH to get direction and information on this aspect of the emu matter.
The State Lab informed me that it was the Department’s recommendation that Towns belong to a mosquito control program and gave me the number of the local program director so I could further investigate the issue. In the course of our conversation I related the question from the local newspaper about seven birds dead and my concern about the growing magnitude of this incident. The State Lab. person faxed me a DPH press release announcing a “public health advisory” relative to the emu incident stating that seven birds had died and other birds in the flock appeared ill.
Since our Board requires “keeping of animal” permits and that we had no permit or knowledge of anyone who possessed such a large number of emus. I requested the location of the farm. I was referred to Fish & Wildlife who had jurisdiction over this matter because emus are not considered domesticated animals.
It was at this time that I learned that many state agencies were involved in this incident including the Environmental Police. Calls to Fish and Wildlife resulted in my being transferred to voice mail. Frustrated, I called the Environmental Police and spoke to Officer Dave Brouilette who was the best source of information yet encountered. Officer Broulliette informed me that there was indeed a herd of 24 emus of which at least half had died and were buried on site. The remaining birds had been segregated into two groups, one which contained the visibly sick animals and one composed of apparently health birds. He told me the birds were under quarantine.
When asked the location of the farm, he told me that he had been instructed by DPH not to disclose the location. He did however, state that the Board of Health should have been notified before the on-site burials took place. He gave me the phone number of the veterinarian from Food and Agriculture who had inspected the farm. After more frustration with voice mail I resolved to call back to my original contact at DPH and confront whoever was responsible for withholding the information about the site from me.
By this time it was approximately 3:00 p.m. and I had been on and off the telephone since before noon trying to get the full story about this incident, the magnitude of which seemed to grow by the hour. I was not getting any work done in my business and, given my previous positive relationship with DPH, I could not believe that they would withhold information from me or my board.
The call back to DPH was an unpleasant one with two people agreeing with me unofficially that I should receive all the existing information. Finally however, I obtained the location of the farm and the name of the individual who had brought the initial sample to Tufts Medical for analysis. A jurisdictional issue among the state agencies involved was the main excuse given for withholding this information. I believe that any and all information possessed by DPH on an issue involving a threat to the public health should immediately be released to a local BOH on request if not forwarded automatically.
In the end, the key to my obtaining all the other information was that the State Lab informed me that the person who had brought the sample to Tufts was the local veterinarian who employed our Town Animal Health Inspector, Pam Stone. I called the veterinarians’ office and Pam answered the phone. She had been on vacation in California until 2:00 a.m. Wednesday and had not returned the calls on her answering machine including our calls to her from the BOB office. Pam informed me that her boss had assisted in having the samples tested at Tufts but not otherwise involved in the emu incident.
Pam put me in contact with Mike Cahill from the Department of Food and Agriculture. He was able to contact his colleague, Dr. Lorraine O’Connor, the veterinarian who had inspected and overseen activity at the farm. Dr. O’Connor called me from her home at approximately 6:00 PM and gave me all the information about the farm the condition of the remaining animals, the method of disposal of the dead animals, and the potential threat to the human population.
The level of information provided by Dr. O’Connor was what I felt was appropriate and necessary for a local Board of Health. I wanted to know that a competent professional was in charge of the incident and that everything was being handled in an appropriate and safe manner. I wanted to know who this person was so that if any questions arose, I could get answers in a timely fashion. I needed to know if there was anything that I should be doing or telling other people not to do. It should not have taken me six hours to accomplish this!
In the final analysis, this story should not be about a lack of communication but rather about a number of state agencies working together very professionally to address an extremely unusual incident that possessed overlapping jurisdictional implications. Because emus are not considered domesticated animals, this incident fell under the jurisdiction of the Division of Fish and Wildlife. Since Fish & Wildlife does not have a veterinarian on staff, Dr. O’Connor of Food and Agriculture volunteered her services to ensure that all measures were taken to ensure the health and safety of the surviving emus while advising public health officials of the potential threat to the human population.
The DPH staff person responding to this event was also pressed into service. His normal duties are related to the monitoring of the threat of encephalitis to the human population but he actually assisted in removing the dead animals from their pen in order to attempt to isolate the apparently healthy animals from the disease. Since he was inoculated against encephalitis, he was the best prepared to perform this function and did so willingly and on his own initiative.
Other departments were involved in this incident and worked cooperatively to assist the professionals who were directly working on the problem. This incident is such a good example of state employees working together, utilizing their particular skills and expertise to address an unusual occurrence regardless of their agency affiliation, that I believe that it would be regrettable to not review and evaluate our collective performance.
Those who responded so professionally should be commended for their willingness to go beyond their normal call of duty. Regular protocols should be adopted to deal in the future with any similar event. We should also work to address the lack of communication that caused me so much discomfort on Oct. 3rd. Food and Agriculture’s policy of not making public the quarantining of farm animals, was misinterpreted by some at DPH that this information was confidential and should not be shared with the local board of health. This error should be addressed so that it never happens again. Additionally, since Fish and Game and Food and Agriculture were involved, these agencies should take steps to ensure that incidents involving a potential public health threat are reported to the local BOH by the personnel involved. If it is the policy that all parties involved notify the local BOH, there is far less likelihood of a communication breakdown.
The importance of this information was emphasized when I discovered that the Essex BOH sanitarian, a private engineer, a septic system installer and two soil evaluators were on the quarantined property on matters related to a septic system upgrade on Oct 7th , Despite the fact that one was an employee of the Essex Board of Health, these individuals were totally unaware that the property was under quarantine or that it was the property highlighted in the newspapers.. While it seems that the threat of exposure was minimal, they would probably have postponed their activities on the subject property until this matter was totally resolved.
Ironically, on Saturday, October 10th, I received a call from the public relations director of the Topsfield Fair who happens to live in Essex. She questioned me about the status of the emu issue and informed me that there were two emus from a farm in West Gloucester on display at the Fair.
Dr. O’Connor had indicated during our conversation that she was aware of the presence of these emus in West Gloucester and also that she was considering expanding the quarantine to include those animals. until the disease in Essex had run its course and we had experienced a hard frost. I was confident that Dr. O’Connor would not approve of these animals being displayed at the Fair.
At 5:00 p.m., I was able to contact Fish & Wildlife through the Environmental Police and explained the situation. They had the animals removed from the Fair. While the threat was probably minimal, it would have been foolish to subject other animals at the Fair or thousands of human fairgoers to even a slightly elevated level of risk. Good communication is the cornerstone of an effective relationship between DEP/DPH and the local board of health!
U