Perhaps the only question remaining is which wolf or group of wolves were responsible for the mauling death of 32-year old Candice Berner, who at the time of her death was living in Chignik Bay on the Alaska Peninsula. The autopsy, authorities say, along with circumstantial evidence has ruled out attack by any other predator but wolves. Further testing might reveal which wolf or wolves did the actual attack.

Ms. Berner had her own blog, The Adventures of an Alaskan Bush Teacher and wrote and posted pictures of her life for the short time she had been in Alaska. From her blog it appears she was very much familiar with the outdoors and at least some of the potential dangers of living on the Kenai. She wrote this pertaining to wolves:

Chignik Lake’s mascot is a wolf and it sits in the lobby of the school. It’s a great reminder of what lurks outside in the wilderness and to be on the alert at all times. The wolf population in Alaska is rather large and some believe they are the reason for the decrease in moose and caribou.

My thoughts and prayers go out to all of Ms. Berner’s family and friends. What a tragic loss.

Tom Remington

Related Articles

• Woman Killed In Alaska. Possible Wolf Attack (3)
• Wolves Taking Only Sick And Weakly Not Historical Fact (12)
• W.I.S.E.: Human-Habituated Wolves In Idaho (26)
• Wolves In Korea Killed 113 People And 2,000 Animals (0)
• Two-Thirds of Idaho Wolf Carcasses Examined Have Thousands of Hydatid Disease Tapeworms (21)
• USFWS Basically Ignored Concerns About Disease From Wolves Before Reintroduction (4)
• A Warning To Outdoor Users About Echinococcus, From Worms (23)

*Editor’s Note:* Following is no doubt the most candid discussion you will find anywhere in North America today about predators and their diseases. The discussion surrounds the introduction of the gray wolf to the Greater Yellowstone area and the impact this has had on not only the ecosystem but economically, socially and in the lives of private ranchers and citizens. This discussion not only covers the politics behind the introduction and the ongoing politics but also covers the diseases carried and transmitted by the wolf and the lack of comprehensive research to fully study the environmental, social and economic impacts to this region of the country. This discussion no doubt covers this topic to depths most Americans have never had the opportunity to experience and it is done by some of this continent’s most renowned scientists and researchers. This is a bit lengthy but is very much worth the time it takes to read it thoroughly.

Republished by permission:

Economic and physical dangers to Rural Americans and other unintended consequences

By: Kelly Wood

All American Patriot | March 2010

There are significant economic, health and safety ramifications of the Gray Wolf Introduction Program in Yellowstone Park that have manifested themselves in the Western States along the Rocky Mountain Front. A distinguished panel joins The All American Patriot to discuss these critical issues. The guests assembled for this roundtable are:

Jim Beers, B.S., Wildlife Resources, Utah State University; M.S. Public Admin, University of Northern Colorado. Served as US Navy Officer in the western Pacific, based in Aleutian Island of Adak, Alaska. He retired after 32 years in the US Fish and Wildlife Service in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC as: a Wetlands Biologist, US Game Management Agent, Congressional Fellow, Chief of National Wildlife Refuge Operations, and Wildlife Biologist. Beers travelled extensively in Europe, Africa, and Canada. He has testified multiple times before Congress regarding the theft of $45 to 60 Million dollars by the US Fish and Wildlife Service from State hunting and fishing funds and against Federal authority over invasive species.

Robert T Fanning Jr. Notre Dame, B.A. majoring in biology and sociology, 1973. ; M.B.A 1977; Chairman & Founder, “Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd, Inc”; Retired Sole Shareholder, Director and Officer, M.H. Detrick Co. Major supplier of engineered heat enclosures for steel and other industries since 1914; Fixed Income Specialist, Member Chicago Board of Trade, Member 1981-1994 , Chicago, IL; Registered Representative in 1974 of the New York Stock ExchangeNYSE /Commodity Futures Trading Commission CFTC . Proud father of two highly accomplished adult sons and daughter.

Dr. Valerius Geist, Ph.D. Biology. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, University of Calgary. Served as a professor and department head responsible for environment science in the Faculty of Environmental Design where he specialized on wildlife biology and wildlife conservation policy. Publisher of 17 books and over 300 publications, he is a Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science and State Professional Biologist. Geist has retired to a remote section of Vancouver Island where he has chronicled the near elimination of ungulates through intense predation by a growing, and brazen to human activity, wolf population.

Will Graves, B.A. Russian, Syracuse University; Masters Russian, American University. Retired in 1987 after a 35 year career in the Federal Government, beginning with the US Dept of Agriculture working as Chief of Livestock Inspecting, Vaccinating Brigade in Oaxaco, Mexico. whose mission it was to help stamp out Foot and Mouth disease. After volunteering for the US Air Force, Graves, while stationed in Berlin, Graves began comprehensive research on Russian Wolves – their characteristics, habits and behavior. With frequent travel to Russia, this research eventually culminated in his book, “Wolves in Russia”, published in May 2007.

Bill Hoppe: Fifth generation Montanan. Rancher and owner, together with his wife, of North Yellowstone Outfitters of Paradise Valley, MT. His great grandfather was the first recorded Caucasian child born in the Montana territory in1864, at Nevada City. He is a fourth generation outfitter whose Great Grandfather, Grandfather, and Father have outfitted in the state. For nearly 58 years, he has hunted, observed and lived with wildlife in and around Yellowstone and matches his expertise and credibility on the truthful aspects of Wolf activity, with that of any Multi-million dollar Government program funded, employee.

and

Dr. Delane Kritsky: Professor Emeritus, College of Health Professions, Idaho State University. B.S., Biology, Mathematics and Education, 1965, Minot State College, Minot, ND; M.S., Zoology, 1967, Sacramento State College, Sacramento, Ca; Ph.D., Zoology, 1970, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. Associate Dean and Professor (35 years) within Department of Health and Nutrition. Extensively published in over 150 publications, Dr. Kritsky’s primary expertise is in Parasitology. Past leadership includes Presidency, Rocky Mountain Conference of Parasitologists, Active professional and honorary affiliations with American Society of Parasitologists, Helminthological Society of Washington, and American Association for Zoological Nomenclature.

All American Patriot (AAP): Drs. Geist and Kritsky, Messrs. Fanning, Hoppe, Graves, and Beers, welcome to the AAP roundtable. Gentlemen, we’ve assembled to talk about the re-introduction of the wolf into Yellowstone, but first, there are many who take issue with the term “re-introduction” [Editors note: see the thorough treatment of this issue in the accompanying articles authored by Lynn Sutte .] Why is that?

FANNING: It’s simple. There is no “re-introduction” because the wolf introduced into Yellowstone Park is not native to this geography and had never naturally been here to begin with. The Gray wolf is ironically enough, a human introduced invasive species. You see, the original wolf inhabiting the geography of the Park was a much smaller animal, the Rocky Mountain wolf or Canis lupus irremotus. The Canadian Gray Timber wolf, Canis lupus occidentalis, is also known as the Alaskan Tundra Wolf. It was introduced at significant cost to the U.S. taxpayer and is a super size predator with a rapacious appetite and lust for wanton killing – killing far in excess the number of ungulates (hoofed animals: deer, antelope, elk) claimed by authorities. There are hundreds of cases of man monkeying around with the balance of nature and screwing things up. One of the best examples is the introduction of the Mongoose into the Hawaiian Islands as a means for dealing with a huge and troublesome rat population. Those conscientious biologists however neglected to realize that the rat is a nocturnal animal while the Mongoose preys during the day. Their paths simply never cross, so today Hawaii not only still has its rats, but it has 100s of thousands of Mongooses creating mayhem with rare ground nesting birds and other native species. This is just one example of the law of unintended consequences in dealing with wildlife. The unintended consequence to the Rocky Mountain States of the non native Gray wolf is much, much more serious and not simply the consequence of a couple thousand extra wolves roving the countryside, but rather a much greater problem caused by the level of depredation of native species – Elk and deer, than originally claimed. It’s all about wolf “densities” and who gets to control those densities. Federal and state biologists have failed colossally in their claims every step of the way and the impact is economically huge.

AAP: And what is that impact?

HOPPE: The most visible impact to me is the near elimination of the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd, which at its peak shortly before the Gray Wolf introduction, numbered 20,000 animals. The size of that herd is now less than 5,000. . . if that.

FANNING: Not only has the Wolf program been the equivalent of a dangerous invasive species in Montana, these animals don’t recognize they are citizens of a specific state and certainly don’t recognize they exist for the purpose of remaining in Yellowstone Park so they can be observed by eco-tourists armed with $10,000 telescopes. They have spilled over into Wyoming, Idaho, Utah and Montana and have become a huge problem. The Elk counts are just in from the Lolo Districts 10 and 12 in Idaho. In district 10, the official Elk count in 1995 was 9,729. The count just released is 1,473, — a population decrease of 85% from the Pre-wolf program era. The adjacent District 10 yields a similar loss of 82% from its pre-wolf program days.

AAP: The wolf program advocates will argue that the Elk counts are down for a whole variety of reasons, not the least of which are disease, changing habitat, bears, drought etc . . .

HOPPE: I’m surprised they don’t include abduction by space aliens . . . whatever they need to say in order to justify continued multimillion dollar funding to State and Federal Government programs and the Private environmental groups who lobby and otherwise enable them.

FANNING: Absolutely true! There is some small percentage that will be lost to disease, or any other number of reasons, but to spin that story to use these excuses to account for such a significant decline is rubbish. A top wolf/ungulate (hoofed animals: elk, deer, antelope) expert Tom Bergerud from British Columbia told the Idaho Fish and Game Commission in 2000, “I predict that you´re going to have major impacts from wolves in this state,” (Idaho) he said. I predict a major elk decline . . . [wolves] repeatedly depress moose, caribou and elk populations while studying them throughout Canada and in some cases they wiped out local populations of caribou.” He warned them further, “I’ve watched herd after herd (of caribou) go extinct across Canada. The problem: wolves have no known predators to keep them in balance with the ecosystem.”

AAP: We’ll come back to some of the consequences of the impact on Deer and Elk, but first gentlemen, does anybody really have a handle on how many wolves there are today in the west?

HOPPE: You know, well, what they’re saying is there are 500 in the State of Montana, and I think 600 in Wyoming. And the rest of them are supposedly in Idaho. They’re saying there’s like 1600 wolves. That’s the last number that I saw.

AAP: So, is this an accurate number?

BEERS: No, the real number could be an order of magnitude larger. I don’t think you’ll ever find out.

DR. GEIST: This is an easy question to ask and nobody wants to answer.

AAP: Why is that?

FANNING: The Federal and State agencies responsible for this program promised that there would be a finite, manageable number of wolves. The entire program, built on the Mark S. Boyce computer model, using predictive science as the cornerstone, promised 78-100 wolves over a 10 – 20 year period, maximum! Now, they don’t want to appear “Stupid”, number 1, for not being able to do their jobs competently, or “guilty” number 2, for knowing the outcome and lying about it to the public.

BEERS: I believe that the upper Rocky Mountain population of wolves that we look at now spans from Oregon over to Montana and down to and spilling across Wyoming and this population derives almost entirely from that release in Yellowstone National Park, although there were some remnant populations of wolves, populations or packs, in and out of the Alberta and British Columbia borders up there for sure. The other places that the wolves came from are releases of Mexican wolves down in Arizona and New Mexico. There is a large population of wolves that are in Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and the upper peninsula of Michigan. This is a separate group of wolves that received early protection when there were just a few in Minnesota and they just spread throughout that area in the last 30 years there with federal protection.

GEIST: It may be worth mentioning that the wolves were actually well on the way from coming all on their own from Canada into the western states. There were wolves killed already south of Yellowstone and that was well before the re-introduction ever took place into Yellowstone. So they were coming on their own and the re-introduction just simply speeded things up.

HOPPE: In the mid to late 60s’, Yellowstone Park tried to put wolves in here at that time. In 1968, my dad, my brother and I saw a wolf here above the house. The story was always circulated around that the park had tried to bring in 12 wolves. In later years, probably 1970 or ‘71, I worked in the Park for a few summers, and I saw the cages where they were stored in a building up there above Mammoth. The cages had Canadian stickers on them and had dog feces in them. So it all made sense. A rancher I knew, who’s since passed away, in 1969 said he killed two wolves on his ranch here in the Paradise Valley.

BEERS: A year before I graduated from Utah State in 1963, I took a big game management course that had a one-week field trip up to Yellowstone National Park included in the class. At that time, the National Park Service biologists that talked to us and took us around the park were trying to deal with a problem. There was no hunting in the park. How do you maintain buffalo and elk and still preserve the riparian habitat – the willows and such along the waterways? They were having a terrible problem with too many elk and deer. They talked about how they really needed to get wolves in there to reach a balance of nature. They had . . . at the time, and I was struck even as a student . . . at the sort of fantasy notion, that if we had a few wolves, we could effectively control them. And in turn, they (the wolves) would control these elk and deer, and we’d have the willows back. They were very actively seeking to do that at that time. Our professor in the big game class I took was very reluctant to talk about that whole issue. I know I tried a couple of times to ask him some questions about that and he really didn’t want to talk about it. This was very prevalent thinking, the notion that National Parks can set aside large areas and just by leaving them alone, they’re all going to go back to some sort of pre- Columbian paradise without any interventions.

HOPPE: Jim, the time that you’re talking about, I can remember very well. That was the same time that Yellowstone Park personnel were killing elk inside the park. They did this on the sly, wanting to avoid taking PR heat.

AAP: So again, do any of you feel that there’s been a vast under representation of the actual number of wolves introduced by both Federal and State Officials?

BEERS: I have no doubt based on my 30-plus years with the federal government and my time with Fish and Game in Utah, that the people that work there have under-estimated those numbers regularly and purposefully. This whole affair began with the Endangered Species Act and the “wolf re-introduction”. There is employed this whole philosophy of redoing rural America into some sort of pre-Columbian nirvana and they all felt that was a very righteous cause and they have been underestimating and under counting for years. They do so with impunity because federal and most state employees are protected from any sort of responsibility for their actions in this regard. As long as they’re doing what appears to be a sound job and they have science claims or some sort of an environmental impact statement philosophy on their side, then they’re not really held accountable for anything that goes wrong or anything that they may overlook if they appear to be sincere in doing their jobs. Under-estimating the numbers plays into a whole range of hidden agendas with these organizations that are supported by private environmental concerns, whose employees believe it is their purpose in life to help get appropriated money when they’re able to get rid of hunting and fishing and trapping down the road. They look to wilderness and National Forest with the Park Service having large areas of responsibility for management of a refuge system which is intended to go the same way. All this has contributed to the starving of rural America. Making gun advocates seem extremist and making the use of guns less of a problem down the road. So, it’s all part of a larger agenda that does not bode well for Second Amendment rights, the future for rural Americans in general not to mention the gradual disappearance of grazing and logging lands. Underestimating the wolf count and the new problems they create plays right into that whole movement and philosophy.

HOPPE: There’s been a lot of lying going on since the beginning. Around Thanksgiving of 2004, my wife and I saw 56 wolves for three nights in a row and never walked out of the house. There are witnesses to that fact. I caught Doug Smith, the Project leader for the wolf program, at the airport one evening and I asked him about these animals. He acknowledged them and told me which pack they were from. Two of the packs were inside Yellowstone Park and the pack outside the Park he identified was on my property. I feel there is no doubt that these numbers have been misrepresented for years and years mainly because of what Jim just described. It’s a money thing. The more problems created by wolves the State Fish and Game or Park Service can claim to defend their programs, the more funding they get and the more jobs they can create. You look at some of these people are who are going to retire – and they’ll do it off money based on the wolf program.

BEERS: Speaking of which, I would just mention a good case in point – Jamie Rappaport Clark, when she was became a political appointee as Director of Fish and Wildlife Services. She was in that job to evaluate the deployment of money from the federal aid program to bring the wolves in. Even though she didn’t receive the money from Congress because it had been turned down, she in turn is the one who set up “ Defenders of Wildlife” as the organization that would investigate predation and pay for damages. And then when she lost her job when President Clinton went out of office, she went to the National Wildlife Federation at a salary of $200,000 – $250,000/yr where she did very little before getting fired. She did score a nice severance with bonus. A couple of months later, she pops up in the Defenders of Wildlife as a top official with them where she is today. So it is all interwoven. Clark would not be where she is now; if the wolf had been delisted years ago and we were controlling them and managing them. Her stake was not in achieving efficiency but rather from how organizations could benefit and make money.

AAP: But don’t the administrators of these programs contend that there is huge economic benefit derived from the wolf?

HOPPE: Cheerleaders behind Wolf Ecotourism spout the figure of $35 Million coming from people who travel to Yellowstone to see wolves. People need to understand that the revenue coming into the state of Montana from hunting alone makes that very small in comparison. It is near a quarter of a Billion dollars and because of the wolf, this economic activity is declining. The other thing to realize is that many farmers and ranchers supplement their farming and ranching annual income by outfitting and guiding. As I mentioned, at one time, the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd was the largest in the world – with over 20,000 animals. Now? Maybe 5,000. During the heyday I had over 100 clients during the late season hunt alone and enjoyed a 90%+ success rate. Now, I have a small handful of clients. The elk are gone. They are being slaughtered in the park and the wolves are following the survivors out. Sure, I spot an occasional Elk from my house in winter, but as I mentioned earlier, for three nights in a row, I counted 56 wolves without leaving my house. Ed Bangs, the ranking federal official over the Wolf Program told my brother once at a forest service office in Gardiner that “The wolves are here to stay. It doesn’t matter if they eat every damn last Elk. Live with it.” Well Ed should know. They’re making great progress towards that goal. [Moderator note: Mr. Bangs may have since had a change of heart in this caviler position, since he is reputed to have recently said, "Wolves fix very few problems compared to the ones they create."]

AAP: So, it’s been costly in several different terms. Anybody care to venture a guess as to the aggregate amount of money coming from state and federal coffers affiliated with the Gray wolf introduction program ?

BEERS: As someone who worked as Chief of the Refuge Divisions Operations, which is their budget formation, I’ve been a program analyst in Washington and handled the budget. I know that within the federal budget, it’s hard to pull out the numbers purposely to answer that kind of a question because they can deny that very much of this goes to this, that and whatever. But they have people who you wouldn’t think are in any way attached to wolf work that do spend most of their time, 40 hours a week, working on wolf matters and using federal stimulus money to do so, right now. In fact, I was just told the other day that stimulus money is going up to the wolf project here in Minnesota — money along with remodeling one of the regional offices here for Fish and Wildlife Service. A lot of that money is not considered. So you’ve got the money that is clearly for wolves that goes in grants to Dr. Beers over here for wolf this, that and the other thing, and then grant money for research here, research there, about North Dakota wolves and on the study of genetic strings of wolves in Canada and all this nonsense stuff. By design, it’s very, very difficult to pull that information out. It’s a little easier at the state level but the state employees know that backing up the federal employees and all of their cohorts, wolf related work is their ticket to a really good sound future as long as nobody can nail them with something. So that’s a very difficult question to answer. It would take some time and actually would take some Freedom of Information Act requests and you’d need somebody that really knows that budget. And there are very, very few people in the United States, frankly, outside of the agency and there are very few people within the agency that could track something like that down. That’s all by purposeful design.

AAP: OK, let’s move on to the issue of another significant but unreported issue. Will, you appear to be quite prescient in your concerns about wolf introduction into Yellowstone. In 1993, just prior to the wolf introduction, you wrote Mr. Bangs a letter discussing your concerns – a letter that has since received extremely wide circulation on the Internet. What were the concerns?

GRAVES: It was a long letter dealing with numerous issues gleaned from wolf data on collected in Russia. The primary focus was on the failure of the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) to do due diligence on the impact issue of diseases, worms and parasites and address comprehensive data collected on wolf behavior in Russia. This data was conclusive that Gray wolves are carriers of worms and parasites and pose significant danger to animals and humans. Another important concern was the level of depredation that Wolves would have on the ungulate populations of Yellowstone.

AAP: We’ll deal at length on the Wolf as dangerous parasite carrier issue, but first, let’s talk about the latter concern. Did you get any response to the letter?

GRAVES: No, not at the time, but much, much later, there was a feeble response through back channels. Oddly enough, I had people in Russia asking me about this letter soon after I arrived there – not too long after I sent the letter. There was obviously some level of communication between Bangs and Russian officials, but that communication was not transparent.

AAP: I read it. This letter is a plea to objectively evaluate the program on scientific merits and encouragement not to become enamored/infatuated with the wolf. Do you feel this evaluation was conducted objectively?

GRAVES: Not at all. They worked off of data that had no resemblance to anything published in other countries with their own populations of Gray wolves and significantly underestimated their consumption/kill rates of ungulates. For example, Russian data reveals that on average a gray wolf kills 1 deer a week, or 90 Saiga (Eurasian antelope), 50-80 boar, or 8-10 moose per year but yet the same animal in Yellowstone would supposedly reign in its appetite and only kill one deer every 23 days. Why such a significant difference? I don’t feel there was any kind of responsible evaluation at all and the consequence is significantly lower Elk counts in high density wolf areas throughout the mountain west.

AAP: Speaking of animal kills, there is controversy with the wolf advocates over claims that Wolves kill for sport . . . Does this really happen?

HOPPE: Yes, it’s called a number of other things, including “sport killing.” The scientific term is “surplus killing reflex”. Any Rancher who spends any amount of time paying attention at all, has witnessed this . . . ahem . . . “surplus killing.” Just this past year, in early summer, I was in the Lamar Valley where I personally saw 3 adult wolves ferociously kill and rip apart 10 Elk Calves. They viciously and quickly brought the calves down and proceeded to rip away at the carcasses, fiercely shredding away but oddly they failed to eat anything from the carcasses that they were ripping and shredding. It took them all of a half hr. to do this and after they appeared to tire, they just wandered away.

GRAVES: The official Russian literature on the topic is clear. My letter to Ed Bangs cited data that included documented observations of a single wolf killing 39 reindeer in one attack and another killing 29 in a single attack. It also discussed an incident documented in Sweden in 1977 of one wolf killing between 80 and 100 reindeer in 19 days. The popular misconception is that wolves are noble killers, preying only on the aged, weak, and infirm – The reality is that wolves are opportunistic killers and have an affinity for females that are in late stages of pregnancy and young animals. Sometimes it takes several days for wolves to kill a moose. In the end, they are eating the moose alive — something they also do frequently with sheep.

GEIST: There’s no question about that that this is part and parcel of the nature of wolves. When they have the opportunity to kill in excess, just simply kill and leave, kill and leave, and go on killing, they will do so. This has nothing to do with Yellowstone wolves, Russian wolves — this is a universal characteristic of wolves, period. By the way, grizzly bears will do the same thing. Colleagues have observed them in the Arctic when they were killing calves of the caribou herd. They would just run through the caribou herd killing one calf after the other.

GRAVES: My extensive research I did on the characteristics and behavior of Russian wolves both in Russia and former Soviet Union I found extensive evidence that wolves were surplus killers. The point that usually comes up is why do they engage in surplus killing, and when do they do it. I tried to answer that in my book. The why is for the scientist but there’s no doubt in my mind that wolves are surplus killers and there’s another term that I sometimes use is wanton killing. Wanton killing is when maybe a wolf will just accidentally stumble on a white tail deer or something and will just kill it for the sport, just one game animal. I call it wanton killing. Surplus killing is when maybe a few wolves, maybe three or seven, will kill 30, 40, 50, a hundred sheep in a two or three-hour period. That’s what I call surplus killing.

GEIST: At any rate, this is part and parcel of normal wolf biology. When you introduce wolves, that’s what you will realize.

AAP: But that’s not at all what the wolf advocates say. They not only don’t admit to the notion of wolves engaging in surplus killing, they maintain that the wolf serves a natural purpose in the cycle of life . . .

GRAVES: Yes, they call the wolf the “Sanitarian of Nature.” Even in the Soviet Union, I’d run into people that would use this term. I’ve been in meetings and discussions out here where people say “oh, wolves are they’re so wonderful. They kill off all of the weak and crippled animals so they’re really the sanitarians of nature. But when the Soviets started to do the research on it and look at the remains of animals that had been killed by the wolves, they would try to find the animal as soon as they could and the Soviets have done possibly some of the best research that’s been done on wolves. They would find that about 80 to 90 percent of the kills of the wolf were perfectly healthy, fit animals. Only 10 to 20 percent of the animals would have any defect at all. So how could you call the wolves, sanitarians of ature? Iin addition, they’re spreading around parasites some of which are dangerous to humans and they also spread diseases.

FANNING: The failure to bring in the Russian science was part and parcel of things that were excluded, due diligence that wasn’t performed, and once censored the program looted from the Treasury. $60 million dollars later, we had a program that was crammed down our throats that also had the vast majority of the science excluded from the environmental impact statement and the scientific discussion.

GRAVES: You’re absolutely right. I was amazed that when I read the draft of the environmental impact statement and found that there was very little information in there about the centuries of experience the Russians and the Soviets have had with the wolves. They’ve had much more experience than we’ve had over here and so why weren’t the Russians asked what would be the impact of introducing the wolves? Bob Fanning is right. There was all this science available and it was written by technical people, not only by hunters. I’m always accused of being a hunter and because I am hunter I want wolves exterminated. That’s not true. I don’t want them exterminated. I just want their numbers controlled and I want to help our ranchers and farmers who are taking it very bad – they’re are getting the short end of the stick here.

AAP: Besides the loss of revenue to the state of Montana in hunting, are there other economic costs? and what are they?

FANNING: The costs to Ranchers are huge, with the cost surely totaling many millions of dollars, The Montana Stockgrowers Association is currently studying the impact on their industry of reduced pregnancies and lower weaning weights of cattle, due to wolf activity. Unfortunately, right now the exact cost is hard to calculate and quantify. Yes, there is a program to compensate private property owners for livestock that are killed on their property by wolves. Ranchers are hard pressed however to provide validation to the satisfaction of government inspectors of wolf kills. Wolf predation on livestock herds is a reality for a growing number of ranchers as they incur increased and unanticipated costs of pasturing and feeding livestock herds in suboptimal sections of their own land, being forced to keep the cattle away from higher pastures where they might not otherwise be as safe. Cattle coming out of pastures adjacent active wolf habitat usually weigh significantly less than others maintained in safer pastures. One rancher in Drummond recently stated his heifer calves were on average, 97 pounds lighter. There is also the problem of aborted fetuses by heifers stressed by the presence of wolves. How do you put a cost on the livelihood of a multi-generational rancher, having to get out of ranching because he can no longer bear the cost of dealing with this government introduced invasive species?

AAP: This sounds like a dreary future for Montana and other western state ranchers – particularly those making a living in areas with high density wolf populations.

FANNING: It is, but not at all an accidental phenomenon. Mike Phillips currently a member of the Montana State Legislature, is also simultaneously employed as Executive Director of Ted Turner’s Endangered Species Fund. In that capacity on February 24, 2000, in Duluth, MN, at a conference on wolf introduction, Phillips said to a group of 600 people, in his summary : “The goal of wolf introduction is to drive 30,000 ranchers from public lands.” Despite being videotaped by the University of Minnesota and the International Wolf Center, and reported by the “Minnesota Star Tribune”, and “Wyoming Agricultural”, Phillips recognizing the PR damage of these words, later denied having made them.

AAP: This sounds like a very hostile attitude, bordering on the criminal, that environmentalist extremists have towards ranchers and the U.S. western tradition.

HOPPE: Hostile? It’s not just them, but the Federal and State managers with multi-million dollar budgets built around the wolf program. You have to understand that who we previously considered extremists are now thought of as mainstream. I still think of them as extremists. This guys like Mike Phillips, are in cahoots with the Federal Government whose officials are just as dismissive. Carolyn Sime, the Gray wolf Program Director, told me once in conversation “We’re sorry about what the wolves do to your business but you’ll just have to find something else to do.”

AAP: So let me see if I can summarize . . . Canadian Gray wolves, a non-native species to Yellowstone were introduced when there was a population –albeit small– of an existing species of wolf. The Gray wolf population from the Yellowstone program has exploded and the attendant problems have been purposefully ignored. The impact on ungulates has been severe and all this is swept under the rug because there is significant funding at stake for Federal/State agencies made possible through advocacy by various private environmental concerns. The unintended consequences impacting hunters and ranchers is significant. Is that fair?

FANNING: Yes, That would be a pretty accurate summation. But it is not just a question of the waste of taxpayer dollars, burdened costs on ranching and the loss of hunting. There is the very serious issue of public safety.

AAP: Indeed . . .Let’s focus now on the most important part of Mr. Grave’s 1993 letter to Ed Bangs – that of the threat of serious disease spread by a deadly parasites carried by the Gray wolf . . . What is it called?

GEIST: It is a parasitic infestation, hydatid echinocchal granulosus, (E. Granulosis) a disease that can infect humans and other mammals.

KRITSKY: It is worthwhile to note there are two strains of Echinococcus . The strain that Dr. Geist just mentioned and another, E. multilocularis. As far as I know, wolves are not an important host for E. multilocularis. The strain of E. multilocularis is present in the upper Midwest and appears to be relatively non-infective to man and as far as I know, wolves are not an important host for E. multilocularis. Dr. Geist is exactly correct, E. granulosus is, also in my opinion, the much more dangerous strain as it is highly infective to man and is also a parasite of sheep and domestic dogs which much more easily brings the parasite into homes in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, where human beings can be exposed.

AAP: What is the actual damage of E. Granulosus to human beings?

KRITSKY: Although usually a “dead end” for the parasite, human beings serve as an intermediate host for echinococcus species. The tapeworms may form cysts within many vital organs of human beings, which could result in organ failure. Unfortunately, symptoms of tapeworm are generally seen late in the infection and associated with organ failure, which can result in serious illness or death of the individual.

GEIST: It is indeed a silent disease, is difficult to diagnose, with displays little specificity in symptoms. It can reside in the host for over 10-20 years. Depending on the location and number of cysts, it can range from being benign to, as Dr. Kritsky states – lethal. It is particularly dangerous to anyone engaged in an active, sporting lifestyle, since blows to the body can lead to rupture of cysts with dreadful consequences, and prolonged, costly treatment.

AAP: How does the parasite travel from Wolf to Elk and Deer?

GEIST: It passes from the feces of the Wolf to any nearby foliage as microscopic airborne delivered eggs. Ungulates, by grazing and through normal respiration, then acquire the parasite through these eggs. The parasite then crosses another boundary whenever domestic animals/pets feed on the offal of winter or wolf killed ungulates.

AAP: I’ve noted that various wolf advocates imply this issue is nothing more than a “bogeyman” argument thrown out by the “wolf haters” along with claims that the risk of infection is “one in million” that people around dogs simply need to wash their hands and such and all is well.

GEIST: All is not well. There has been a recent flurry of activity by various government agencies to issue position papers, memoranda and the like on the disease. One can’t help notice the discrepancy in the accounts of hydatid diseases, between those reported by these agencies as opposed to scientific assessments issued by clinicians.

HOPPE: I’m really concerned. I have children and grandchildren in my house and on my property, there can be a high concentration of wolves. Shouldn’t this be of concern for somebody like the CDC (Center for Disease Control?) How worried should I really be?

GEIST: Bill, first of all you are facing a very severe threat, in fact, it is a threat primarily to children in the rural areas of Montana, northern Wyoming and Idaho and Oregon and Washington eventually. The difficulty arises out of the following. If you look into scientific literature, echinococcus granulosus and hydatid disease is by and large considered a rare disease. It’s rare because it is found in a tiny population in the north of this continent –in Alaska and Canada, a tiny population that has dogs that hunt and that feeds infected offal to the dogs. That is offal from caribou and moose that carries it in their lungs. The dogs there are kept outside. They’re kept usually away from the places of residence and the infection takes place when the dogs are harnessed into doing sled work and so on. There may be fecal matter attached to harness and fecal matter — this is how it gets to people by and large. But we’re dealing with a rare disease because it is found under those circumstances. In other words, it doesn’t apply to people that feed offal from caribou and moose in areas where hydatid disease does not occur. The reason hydatid disease did not occur in the 50s, 60s, even 70s over vast areas of North America is because of the severe control of wolves. And I know about that; I’m a Canadian and was aware of what was going on. There was broadcast poisoning for wolves in order to eradicate them. There was trapping for wolves and fur in those days still brought good prices and the game wardens were quite active in eliminating the wolves after the hunting season. And whenever wolves entered the ranch country, the predator officers, control officers, would come in and remove them. And they still do incidentally but nevertheless, we have today a much wider spread of wolves. So under these circumstances hydatid disease was of course, extremely rare. But it was not rare amongst the very people that were associated with feeding their dogs hydatid infected offal.

Now the problem that you have in the western United States is that you have a large wolf population which is heavily infected with tape worm, 63 percent or more as we know from reading the research. You also have a large population . . . or “had” a large population of deer and elk. The deer and elk are also now infected with hydatid cysts in the lungs and liver and these big game animals come into the valley bottoms where they winter. You have a fairly common occurrence in the west now that you have elk and deer around ranch buildings, around farm buildings, and close to rural hamlets. Under those circumstances, you will have animals dying in winter or you have the hunting season and animals dying and the offal of these animals left outside. And you have the possibility that rural dogs from hamlets and from ranches surreptitiously going out and feeding on the infected offal. When that happens, within a few weeks, the tape worm develops in the gut of the dog, and the dog begins spreading millions and millions of eggs into your yards and around the homes and on verandas, and of course, since we allow dogs into the houses, also into the houses.

But that’s not the only source of the eggs. People walking through the yard will bring in the eggs on their boots and the eggs will get on the floor of the kitchen and the living room and adjoining areas. And it’s at this point that something really dangerous is happening. Babies, toddlers, little guys crawling around on the floor with pudgy little hands going through the dust and the dirt putting it into their mouths. Then, you’re going to have children with multiple infections and multiple infections related to diseases. I don’t know how even to escape that except if you either remove the wolves or remove the tape worms out of the wolves. And at the same time, remove the tape worms out of the dogs. Now the only people that have seriously done this were the Finns. I just got a letter from one of my colleagues. When hydatid disease spread in northern Finland — and the Finns were very, very much concerned about that. To them, it was a serious disease. Just as serious as I have illustrated and what Professor Kritsky has recently written, it is a serious, serious matter.

The Finns had a simple solution. They eliminated the wolves and they used machine guns out of helicopters. It was the Army that was called into action so it was the military that flew around with submachine guns eliminating wolves. And then they de-wormed the dogs whenever they could and they got rid of hydatid disease. Unfortunately since that time wolves have returned to Finland and the disease is spreading once more and I don’t know what is going to happen. I just would like to make one statement and this is important. I have looked at the history of wolves and humans and I’ve looked at it quite recently. I know of no case where wolves have co-existed peacefully with human beings in a settled landscape. And that is exactly the aim of the environmental organizations here and in Europe. I see currently every indication that what is happening in the west is a repeat of history.

BEERS: It is ironic you should mention the Finn solution. In 1998 I was involved in traveling to Europe multiple times that year fighting European unions’ attempt to ban the import of furs. The United States worked very closely with Canada and Russia to do that and we were having lunch one day arranged lunch by the Europe Union and there were two Russian representatives there one with a Ph.D. from Moscow and the other a wolf technician from a region close to Siberia. The technician sat next to me and we got along real well in the meetings. He actually said to me about halfway through the meeting . . . he said Mr. Beers, “Can I ask you something?” I said “sure.” I thought we were going to talk about fur bearers because he was really into sables and the export of furs, but he said, “Is it true that your country is bringing wolves back and protecting them and trying to breed them?” He looked at me right in my eyes and he was unbelieving. I said, “It’s true . . . they’ve just done that in Yellowstone Park.” And I said, “I don’t know where that’s going to lead.” And he actually said to me, “That is no good . . . I do not understand how you ever beat us in the Cold War.” I’ve since reflected on this Russians incredulity at the U.S. folly and the humor of this guy wondering with our bungling mentality on this matter, how we could have ever beaten them.”

GRAVES: Yes, because they lived it. Dr. Geist was kind enough to write the forward in my book about Russian wolves. The words he wrote then were especially salient. He wrote, “North Americans have an opportunity to learn from others in good time to adopt management measures that minimize dangers and problems with wolves. If we fail to discuss the Russian experience and continue with myopic and currently fashionable romantic visions about wolves, which are enshrined in law, then in the long run it will be wolves, if not wildlife conservation as a whole that will pay the price. We can learn from history that failure to manage wolves, results in their decimation, if not extinction. Unfortunately, as the great philosopher Emanuel Kant once quipped, we learn from history that we do NOT learn from history!”

AAP: Just a moment gentlemen. You spoke earlier Dr. Geist, about elimination of the wolf as the solution. I’m confused. As you wrote the words that Bill just cited and as you’ve previously written on the topic, you’ve suggested the problem can be managed so man can co-exist with the wolf?

GEIST: I have in fact, but my comments aren’t contradictory. The surest solution to the problem of course would be to eliminate the wolf from the cycle, engage in an ambitious plan to worm dogs and livestock and eventually, as what happened in Finland, the problem would be eradicated. Baring that commitment, there is a second alternative which is much more costly and complicated . . . but possible.

AAP: What is that?

GEIST: I’ve written extensively on this. It involves three steps.

(1) Assuming the number of wolves can be reduced to enable a vibrant prey base, we place bait stations that are accepted by wolves, with bait containing anti-helminthic drugs. This isn’t a quick project since it will require that wolves accept bait and that won’t immediately happen. It will require experimentation and commitment to make bait stations operational and effective. Once they are, the stations will break the hydatid cycle between wolves and ungulates. This will be an ongoing process and over time, will lead to decreased incidence in infections of the parasite in wolves.

(2) Under moist and cold conditions, hydatid eggs remain viable for months and have the potential to infect up to 3 ½ years later. Under dry, hot conditions, the eggs die quickly. Though burning the under story in forests will not eliminate the dangers from hydatid eggs, it will decrease those odds. Though very expensive, it’s a policy worth looking at.

(3) Last, one would have to implement a very thorough campaign to regularly de-worm domestic dogs in danger areas as well as encourage hygienic measures. It means winning the ears and the trust of the rural communities.

AAP: Dr. Kritsky, what is your opinion of the treatment of this issue by State and Federal officials?

KRITSKY: What I’ve seen suggest one of two things: (1) They don’t (didn’t) understand the potential importance of the parasite to human health, or (2) If they do (didn’t) understand, there must have then been an effort to down play the situation to satisfy the concerns of people regarding wolf introduction. In either case, they are, in my opinion, responsible for whatever public health problems that might happen as a result of their actions and/or ignorance. We should be asking who (the U.S. Government? The State Fish and Wildlife Services? The Wolf Advocates?) will be paying the health bills and funeral expenses for those who will ultimately become infected as a result of Gray wolf introduction into Idaho, Montana and Wyoming?

AAP: Dr. Kritsky, do you share Dr. Geist’s assessment of the problem, and what are your thoughts?

KRITSKY: I am pretty sure that the only way to deal with the introduction of E. granulosus, in the current situation will be elimination of the wolf from the area. Utah had a focus of E. granulosus during the 1970’s and 1980’s during which time people were dying or undergoing dangerous surgery for the parasite cyst. The Utah focus occurred primarily in rural areas where sheep were raised. My friend and colleague, Dr. Ferron Anderson at BYU, was conducting research on E. granulosus in Utah and developed an educational program that primarily included the burying of sheep carcasses and de-worming of dogs and which eventually eliminated the parasite in central Utah. What was successful in Utah will not work here (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming) because of the wild (sylvatic) cycle the wolf and wild ungulates provide in maintain the parasite in the region.

HOPPE: I read about these views and I’m quite concerned. Seems like they could have learned a lot from the Russians and Finns before introducing the wolf.

GEIST: What is so fascinating about it is from my perspective ,is that when I first found out about echinococcus granulosus being found in the western United States, I simply just stated what we as students in wildlife management learned when we were students, and that knowledge is 40 or 50 years old.

AAP: Why didn’t government officials get out in front with this information before they released these wolves?

GRAVES: I have been reading Russian language since 1950 and in 1978 I read an article by a noted Russian scholar, Ms. N. Nazarova. She was identified as a candidate for biological sciences and she wrote a two-page letter which I translated and I wanted to get in my book but unfortunately there wasn’t enough room so I put it in my website [Editors note, see www.wolvesinrussia.com.] And in that article back in 1978 this specialist wrote that wolves carry this Echinococcus . They not only identified that the wolf carries this tape worm but that it is a threat and dangerous to humans. And that was all over Russian literature, of course, at that time Soviet literature in 1978.

GEIST: If I may interject quite quickly, my wife and I and another colleague were being taught in parasitology classes in late 1950s and ’60s and Professor Adams taught us and he was involved in research and he brought some of the most gruesome slides you could possibly imagine of E. Granulosus victims, from the general hospital in Vancouver. Subsequently to that, I had a very dear friend (who has unfortunately passed away) and I discussed with him this hydatid disease and it is a serious disease. The reason I think most of our colleagues in the United States were not familiar with it is because to us in Canada it was a real concern to us. We have it mainly in the North Country and we had to understand under what circumstances it occurred and we have to understand how to make sure we didn’t get infected. So what I was writing about is just simply what we were taught quite early of these dangers. Besides that, of course I had more reason than anybody else to be concerned because one of my relatives died of the echinococcus disease in Russia. And my grandfather insured that his two daughters were very, very much aware that dogs should remain outside, and if at all possible, you should wash your hands if at all possible every time after touching a dog. And in Russia the custom was not to let dogs inside the house and to provide a basin for visitors to wash their hands in. So it was, I suspect, also the idea that dogs are unclean. And it goes back to hydatid disease. So this is a serious disease. Many of my colleagues in the United States appear to be quite unaware of it. Just as they were quite unaware that wolves under specific circumstances could become very dangerous to people. They’ve denied it.

AAP: Why do you think they denied or ignored such a preponderance of evidence?

BEERS: I’d like to make a quick observation you guys as an old bureaucrat. You wonder why they didn’t bring up this health thing before and why people didn’t object to it or why they didn’t look into it. And I would suggest to you based on what I saw go on while I was in Washington on this issue was that the Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society and all these guys were trying in the end of the ’90s to get money from Congress to introduce wolves into the West. And they could not get it. I remember the way they introduced wolves was to steal money for a two-year period around 60 million dollars out of the federal aid money that goes to the state fishing and hunting programs. When they got this money and got fishing money without really making it a public affair thing at the time, they just went up to Canada, got the wolves and brought them down to Yellowstone. Everybody said: “oh, there are wolves in Yellowstone!” Boom! They’re being released and they’re being acclimated. Once they were there, Congress couldn’t do anything about it. It was too late. So the Congressmen and all the politicians did not want to anger those powerful environmental groups. So there was never any follow-up. If it had been done properly, say, they had requested 30 million dollars starting in 1994 to introduce wolves, it would have been a process in place and there would have been more hearings and chances to bring up these things and ask them why not. But because it was a deal that was done overnight with stolen money, that process was never formalized. They actually made two requests for that money. And what they intended to do was to make human existence with wolves in western America and even upper Midwest more and more dangerous. They intended to make over in rural western America, even the rural upper Midwest, more and more dangerous to people, talking about kids at bus stops and everything. They wanted big game hunting to be really cut back and that’s just what’s happening right now with the elk. They’d eventually just do away with hunting. They wanted ranchers off the public land and really off the ranches in between the public land. And I suggest to you that all of this publicity that’s now coming out about hydatid disease and tape worm — to those folks, it’s just a big bonus. It’s just — it’s like you’ve put together some sort of a super bomb and find out you can put an atomic bomb in with it too when you drop it. It’s just even more effective for those same purposes to make people evacuate rural America, to become more subservient and we can see what’s going on continuously with these state and federal Fish and Wildlife agencies? Their intent? To do with private property in the rural parts of the United States. Ted Turner’s guy, Phillips, as Bob mentioned, just happened to let the cat out of the bag by mistake.

FANNING: This is all very troubling information that serves as evidence to the public that this is yet just one more example of a government cram-down, using many multiple millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars creating a program that has serious implications including the re-ordering of American rural life along with the creation of serious health consequences to not only those who live in rural settings, but for those who recreate there as well. These are serious unintended or perhaps, intended (?), consequences of the Gray wolf.

AAP: Gentlemen, it has been a pleasure. My only regret is that we don’t have the space to report to the public everything that was discussed here today on the topic. Notwithstanding, what are your most important final thoughts?

BEERS: The entire history since Columbus came to North America, the entire relationship between Americans and Canadians and Europeans up until the last two or three decades was one of control and eradication. We never had any programs of maintaining wolves or managing them in a sense of taking care of them. And for a country, us — the U.S. that had never managed them to not use the information from a country like Russia who did, and who had compiled a long written history of data on their impact on eco-systems – what they do to reindeer, what they do to sheep, what they do to dogs – with all the implications of such history, to ignore all that was accumulated science regarding wolves, was gross negligence and incompetence on our part. Because everything we had here for 400 years was strictly the control and killing of them until this fantasy business started to emerge in the 1980s about what benign animals they were and they only kill the lame and the halt. It’s a real travesty when you think of it . . .the way we made assumptions based on false premises and didn’t take advantage of another country’s data.

FANNING: Last Friday (March 5, 2010), I had a meeting and conversation with Joe Maurier, FWP Director, following an extensive hearing. I testified on behalf of Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd regarding wolves and hydatid disease in front of the Montana Environmental Quality Council. The leadership of Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks was present as was the Chairman of the Montana Fish and Game Commission. We explained to the abbreviated session of the Montana Legislature that the fatal, wolf born Echinococcus granulosus disease posed great and lethal public health threats and presented our multiple Ph.D & D.V.M. source citations. We pleaded that the Governor call in the CDC to quantify the damage, educate the public as to the health risk, and train health care workers in all Montana hospitals to recognize ,diagnose and treat Echinococcus granulosus. We demanded that Mt. FWP cease in their public relations campaign to down play the situation, because of their financial conflict of interest and potential trailing liability issues and especially their lack of qualified public health officials to make such reckless and unfounded assertions. Director Maurier agreed with us in his open testimony, particularly after his Montana FWP Veterinarian confirmed that 90 % of the introduced wolves tested in SW Montana are carrying the disease, such disease being prevalent due to the high densities of these wolves. He stated further that the C.D.C. should be brought in.

In that meeting, I told Director Maurier that if the public health issue of Echinococcus granulosus hydatid disease is not confronted directly, openly, honestly and professionally with science instead of politics and stop the 3 year cover up of the hydatid disease and other wolf born diseases test results, then, not only would the Montana public completely lose trust in Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks but they would stop obeying that agency as well. The Gray wolf has been forced on us and because of the lethal disease they can introduce to the human population; we have a natural, lawful right to defend ourselves, our children and grandchildren. I concluded by advising Director Maurier that Friends of the Northern Yellowstone Elk Herd has submitted formal, written legal notice, following extensive consultation with multiple highly credentialed scientists.

GRAVES: Before the Gray wolf introduction, and from the start, I tried to get across to the ranchers that the main threat in bringing wolves was not that of the wolves killing people. That’s what most of the ranchers were thinking their opposition to bringing the wolves in was – that the wolves would be a threat to the children. I tried to tell them the real threat was going to be from the parasites and diseases that the wolves would spread around, especially so after their numbers would increase. And that’s exactly what has happened. Fifteen years later, the wolf numbers are very high and as wide ranging animals they are spreading deadly disease and parasites that threaten human beings.

Kelly, consistent with the question that you started this discussion with, we have heard here the studied judgment of Dr. Kritsky, a Ph.D – specialist in host parasite biology. We have the judgment of Dr. Valerius Geist who has characterized the likely outcome, health wise of a program gone wrong. At what stage do the people of Montana have to turn to Carolyn Sime who is a functionary of a multi-million dollar empowered bureaucracy and hold her and others responsible for neglect? At what point do we stop being dismissed as alarmists when we continue to produce Ph.Ds that say that we have absolute reason and right to be alarmed at these wolf densities and diseases that these wolf densities impose on our society on our people? At what point do Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks come clean with the studies that they have allegedly conducted — well, based on a 2007 document while we’re talking about decades of studies yielding different findings? When are they going to come clean about the diseases these animals carry and to what degree they are carried?

HOPPE: It’s our right to know. We’ve been lied to since the beginning. I attended the first wolf meeting that I can ever remember in this country. It was back in I want to say the mid ’80s and there was a guy there named Hank Fischer. I believe he was with “Defenders of Wildlife” [Editor’s note. Mr. Fischer was at the time, Northern Rockies representative for Defenders of Wildlife. He is currently the Special Projects Coordinator for the National Wildlife Federation.] It was in Emigrant Montana and Hank stood up in front and I remember his words just like it was today. He said “Oh, this will be a low impact, low budget operation and nobody will ever know it took place.” Those were his words. Now, 15 years later I think we can safely say, it is anything but low budget and it is certainly not low impact.

Related Articles

• Will Graves’ Comments To Environmental Quality Council On Hydatid Disease (1)
• Two-Thirds of Idaho Wolf Carcasses Examined Have Thousands of Hydatid Disease Tapeworms (21)
• USFWS Basically Ignored Concerns About Disease From Wolves Before Reintroduction (4)
• A Warning To Outdoor Users About Echinococcus, From Worms (23)
• Are Idaho Wildlife Biologists “Really That Dumb”? (3)
• Interview With Will Graves: Author, “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through The Ages” (6)
• Echinococcus Granulosus In Idaho Brought By Wolves And Here To Stay (11)

Tom Remington

Related Articles

• Autopsy Pretty Much Rules Out Candice Berner’s Death Anything But Wolves (9)
• Debunking The Myth That Wolves Don’t Bite (5)
• Wolves Taking Only Sick And Weakly Not Historical Fact (12)
• Two-Thirds of Idaho Wolf Carcasses Examined Have Thousands of Hydatid Disease Tapeworms (21)
• A Warning To Outdoor Users About Echinococcus, From Worms (23)
• Blissful Ignorance Is Dangerous To Your Health (1)
• When Biologists Stocked Alaska With Wolves (0)

The model for most of these bills came from Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act, a bill that basically states that any gun or gun accessory manufactured in Montana that is purchased and remains in Montana, cannot be regulated by the Federal Government of the United States. Montana is seeking “Declaratory Judgment” before suggesting that anyone proceed with the manufacturing of guns and accessories.

In reality what these Firearms Freedom Acts are doing is “nullifying” the authority of the Federal Government to regulate guns within the borders of each state when none of the guns or related products ever leave the state. The Federal Government has been very successful in the past in regulating all guns through the “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. Montana’s bone of contention is that the Commerce Clause has regulated interstate commerce and has no authority over intrastate commerce.

One might ask if this is a full blown act of nullification. It’s not that Montana and other states are saying that any or a specific federal law is being declared unconstitutional in it’s entirety. In this case any law that the Federal Government thinks gives them authority to regulate intrastate gun manufacturing, is being challenged.

Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and one of the sponsors of the MFFA, says this is a states’ rights issue.

This is a states’ rights effort, using firearms as the object of the exercise. The MFFA exempts Montana-made and retained firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition from federal power, saying that if these items do not cross state lines, they are strictly INTRAstate commerce, not INTERstate commerce, and not subject to federal authority.

Although nullification isn’t a term that is widely used these days, there are other examples of modern day nullification or challenges to certain federal laws. Two that come to mind are the REAL ID Act and marijuana laws. Some states have passed legislation challenging the constitutionality of forcing citizens to have to carry an identification card they believe infringes on their right to privacy and the Constitution. And, some states have passed their own laws authorizing marijuana for medical use where the Federal Government bans all uses and possession of the drug.

We may also be staring down the barrel of nullification depending on what happens with President Obama’s proposed National Health Care plan. If it is mandated that every American citizen have health insurance, many have asked where in the Constitution does the Federal Government have that kind of authority.

Probably the most recent case that expanded the power of the Federal Government to regulate commerce, came in 1942 in the Wickard v. Filburn case. This came at a time when President Roosevelt demanded the power to institute his programs he thought where going to get us on the road to recovery after the Depression. Scary isn’t it.

One of the more notable accounts of nullification was in 1832 in South Carolina. South Carolina’s “Ordinance of Nullification” declared the Tariff of 1828 and Tariff of 1832 unconstitutional. This put President Andrew Jackson in quite the predicament. While Jackson quietly assembled his army, ready to invade South Carolina, negotiations continued. Jackson’s fear was that if South Carolina were to be allowed nullification, many of the southern states would follow suit. Also many of the New England states apposed the tariffs. Jackson feared that secession would follow the nullification and this would lead to the demise of the Union. He also feared that an invasion of South Carolina could just as easily lead to civil war.

Other than President Jackson’s fear of the trouble in South Carolina, his bigger deterrent was coming from the fact that several other states, although never officially declaring nullification, were poised to do so.

Perhaps it is telling that so many states are seeking some form of nullification, some dealing with REAL ID, others medical marijuana and 25 states or more, opting to use gun rights as their tools to seek out a return of more state sovereignty, as is granted us in the Tenth Amendment. What does it tell us that so many states chose gun rights as their tool? And what does it tell us about the people’s attitudes toward the expansion of government.

Where will this go? First we should wait to see what the Court rules in the Montana Firearms Freedom Act case and watch to see how many other states pass and get signed their “nullification” bills. Soon, then, we can declare, “Balls in your court!

Tom Remington

Related Articles

• Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act Battle Against Obama’s Power Grab (4)
• Obama Administration Begins Opposition To States Claiming Sovereignty And Gun Rights (27)
• Feds Respond to Firearms Freedom Act Lawsuit (0)
• Gun Groups File Lawsuit to Validate Montana Firearms Freedom Act (1)
• CNN Covers Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act (2)
• S. Dakota, Colorado File “Firearms Freedom Act” Bills (4)
• Top Ten Black Bear Blog Stories Of 2009 (1)

Clinging to the false indoctrination that wolves have an “eye” for which prey to destroy, is another allegorical fabrication that before man arrived our wilderness and all the species that dwelt within it was “balanced”, to represent or simulate some fanciful garden of Eden. Historical documents show a completely different picture.

Most who perpetuate these myths, point all blame for anything bad that happens to our environment, whether real or fabricated, on man. The truth is, much of the wildlife that Americans love to see and claim as theirs, was very scarce until man arrived and brought with him agriculture and soon followed by an understanding of the need to control predators, particularly those that where destroying the game herds man needed for survival.

We can look through many historical documents to learn that what is being indoctrinated into our children as fact concerning wildlife and the impact predators have on it, just does not agree with history. If we take, for example, many accounts published in Alaska Wildlife Digest in 1975, there’s no denying that wolves kill for food, for sport and from lust and more times than not the methods they employ in bringing down their prey are brutally cruel.

Many believe Alaska has always been a mecca for wildlife. In 1885, a Lt. Allen led the first exploration into the interior of Alaska right after the state was purchased. His journal describes the route and what was seen.

His party traveled the Copper River from salt water to the head, floated the Tanana River from near the head to the confluence with the Yukon, traveled overland from that point 100 miles to about the location of Hughes on the Koyukuk, floated down the Koyukuk and back into the Yukon, floated the Yukon to its mouth without seeing a single big game animal alive.

The expedition learned that the natives lived off rabbits and salmon as finding moose was rare. Over time, as man began moving into the Alaska wilderness, their mere presence began to create a better habitat. Combine that with efforts to control large predators and soon large game animals like moose began to flourish. It soon became a constant battle between three entities – the men who wanted to control predators to allow game animals to prosper to feed the natives and themselves; wildlife management and the environmentalist who wanted to promote Alaska as their “Disneyland” of wilderness, at the expense of human starvation and the destruction of game herds.

What was taking place on the ground in places of Alaska and what was being told in cities in the lower 48 were very conflicting stories.

Below are documented accounts in Alaska that show clearly that wolves are not discriminate hunters, culling the sick and weak animals all for the purpose of making our ecosystems healthier. It is much to the contrary.

When a blowing storm came he [wolf] did not take the sick and the lame but cut out 40 to 100 from a herd and would slaughter nearly all he took and did not even touch any for feed. If he did take time, all he cut out was the tongue…………………….
One day one of my reindeer herders and myself watched a large caribou herd stalked by 14 wolves. The herd was uneasy. When the time was ready, four wolves appeared from behind the herd and a stampede started which would head this herd straight toward a bluff which would be impossible for any game to descend. As the momentum grew more wolves appeared and as the herd approached the bluff the attack started from both sides. There were dead caribou, also many that could hardly move due to the leg sinews having been cut.

This account came from Sam O. White, known as Alaska’s first flying game warden.

One time over on the Nation River in the upper Yukon-I was up there with a mounted policeman-Clarence Rhodes was with us too-we were watching caribou in the winter. There was a bunch of nine wolves, they weren’t all pups either. There were some big ones and they were chasing a caribou. They caught up with him and we watched what happened. Well, they hit that caribou and knocked it down and they all started eating on it right then. They got their mouths full and you could see them bolting it down, right from the air.
It was a big bull. He got up and ran-took off. They let him go. They didn’t pay any attention to him till they got their meat swallowed and then they took after him again. They had the caribou down five times before he stayed down and each time they got a meal, got a feed off him. Boy, was the blood flying all over the snow, squirting out on both sides! Caribou are awful tough to kill you know-tougher than moose.

Glen Gregory – Alaska Air-Taxi operator:

I have seen nature at it’s cruelest. During the deep snow winters three and four years ago I had occasion to witness sights that made me sick. The route from Tanana to Ruby is over the Yukon River all the way. At that time there was a good moose population that congregated on the willow covered islands of the river in the winter. On several occasions I spotted moose standing in the deep snow with chunks eaten out of them, bleeding to death. The snow would be red all around them. There was no pattern to where the wolves bit first, although the rump seemed to be the favorite location. Probably because it is less protected.

This observation came from someone who used to be a gunner on aircraft that shot wolves to reduce the population.

A couple years ago, my gunner and I saw a moose kill, the moose was, at most, 1/4 eaten. The next weekend we flew by and there were three more dead moose laying within a square block of the first. These three were less eaten than the first.
We watched these kills the remainder of the year, and all that fed there were crows and fox. To me, this is a tremendous waste of good meat, just to satisfy the killing lust of the wolf.

And then there’s the accounts of Mike Stultz, who served for a few years as a Protection Officer for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. His is an incredible story that perhaps best epitomizes much of what’s wrong with wildlife management as it becomes more and more deeply influenced by politics and wildlife biologists being indoctrinated about the myths of predators through our education system.

Stultz bore witness to the complete destruction of a very large moose herd. Regardless of the countless number of times he contacted the Fish and Game Department, they refused, for whatever the reasons, to heed his words or even visit the area that was being systematically wiped out by wolves. He describes it this way:

Little did I realize that I would personally witness the destruction of one of the great moose populations in Alaska through the forces of nature and the blind stupidity of the Department of Fish and Game, and this experience would leave me with a feeling of frustration so great I can never work for the Department again.

Stultz also tells us he arrived at his job as a believer that wolves could not and would not kill moose.

That winter, flying with Dick Nicholes and Terry Holliday of Gulf Air Taxi based in Yakutat, I begin to see things I found very difficult to believe. Everywhere we went south of Yakutat Bay I observed large numbers of moose kills by wolves. Like most people I was of the belief wolves did not or could not kill healthy moose. I was worried and upset that the moose in the area were suffering from a serious food shortage or ailment that made them so weak they fell prey to wolves.

Even after witnessing first hand the destruction being caused by these wolves, Stultz continued hard to convince himself there had to be something else that was making it too easy for the wolves to kill so many moose and moose that from what he could tell were perfectly healthy. His cries for help from the office of fish and game fell on deaf ears and insistence that he was imagining things.

He continued his observations along with gathering facts and witnessing right before his eyes what was happening; events that would change his life forever.

The wolves just took so many fist size bites of meat out of the rump, side, and shoulders of the cow that within fifteen minutes the snow was red in a thirty foot radius around her, and in twenty minutes she was dead……………………………………..
I landed and examined the dead cow. I took a tooth, looked at the heart, lungs, and liver, cracked the leg bone to look at the bone marrow, but I couldn’t see anything wrong with her except she was dead from wolf bites. She appeared a fine, fat, healthy moose that was in the wrong place at the right time.

Still believing he was going to find some other explanation for what he was witnessing, Stultz traveled around to the hunting camps in his region to hear what they were saying.

I flew hundreds of hours during that moose season visiting all the hunters and their camps. Almost everywhere I went the questions and statements were the same: “I have been hunting this area for five years and never failed to get my moose within a half mile of camp the first or second day out. I haven’t even seen a moose this trip, and I have been here a week,” “What are all those big dog tracks doing on all the river bars?” “If things get much worse I will have to have to go to the Interior to hunt next year.” “If there aren’t many more moose around here anymore, why do you guys have a three month either sex hunting season on them?” “I don’t see how hunting can get much worse.”

But it did get worse and yet fish and game still refused to investigate or heed what Stultz was trying to tell them. He was told repeatedly that if moose numbers where being depleted wolves would have nothing at all to do with it. But Stultz continued his work and recording his observations.

Flying my personal airplane that winter, moose because [sic] almost as hard to spot as wolves. I would fly hours and maybe see a dozen moose. Wolf trails and dead moose invariably intersected. The moose herds on the Italio and East Rivers-two of the largest winter herds around-were all but wiped out in a three month span by wolves that were no longer bothered by aerial hunting. As winter progressed moose became so scarce that even the wolves couldn’t find them. They then started to look for other food sources. For the first time in memory wolves were spotted in town eating out of garbage cans. stray dogs running loose disappeared. People with dogs chained outside woke up to find nothing left but blood and tufts of hair. The era of the moose in Yakutat was short lived. They were for all practical purposes gone.

This observation is very important as it falls in line with the seven steps of when wolves become a danger to man as spelled out clearly by Dr. Valerius Geist.

Out of disgust, Stultz left his job and became a teacher. It wasn’t until long after his warnings and cries for help that the fish and game department realized there was a problem, a realization that came too late. From a time when a man, freshly educated with a college degree, enters the Alaska outdoors, it took a short period of time for reality to set in about what wolves are capable of. Stultz clearly became a tainted man as he makes this comment.

The winter of 1973 saw the Department finally put away their comic book entitled “Never Cry Wolf” and admit that wolves were indeed as responsible as hunters for eliminating the Yakutat herds a
peculiar statement since wolves hunt twelve months of the year without regard to season, limit or sex-but it was a definite improvement over their past utterances. Realizing at this late date that predator control was necessary they organized a Department wolf hunt in Yakutat.

So can we now assume that in 1973 biologists learned a very valuable lesson? Can we assume that biologists learned that wolves are a vicious predator, that does NOT subsist mostly on mice and small rodents? Can we now conclude that biologists have finally come to realize that wolves are not selective in their savagery, to weed out the sick and dying? Not at all!

Twenty-three years later in Alaska, biologists talked of an unexplained “die off” of moose on the North Slope. Fish and Game tossed out many theories as to what caused the “die off”; copper deficiencies, brucellosis, insects, range and habitat deterioration, and oh, yes, predation. This is what fish and game said about predators possibly having a role in the moose “die off”.

Both the bear and wolf populations appear quite high and both species are efficient predators, particularly on moose calves. The deaths of half to three-quarters of the calves born on the North Slope each year could be due to predators that thrive on the old, the weak and, most of all, the young (emphasis added).

I believe the cause was blamed on Brucellosis although I can’t find that it was ever proven.

This might shed some light on how deeply ingrained into our wildlife education system certain beliefs have become. While facts and accounts far outnumber any “studies” to show otherwise, the idea that large predators have a measurable impact on our game herds remains the perpetuated theory.

Tom Remington

Related Articles

• Alaskans Feed Themselves from Nature’s Abundance (4)
• Defenders Of Wildlife Attacking Palin. Not Interested In Saving Wolves (6)
• What Has Happened And Will Happen To Our Ecosystems Thanks To Wolves (13)
• Maine’s “Incidental Take Permit” For Canada Lynx – Information/Clarification (4)
• A Warning To Outdoor Users About Echinococcus, From Worms (23)
• Man Is A Predator (9)
• Can We Control Populations Of Coyotes? (12)

Seeming to follow a pattern that is emerging in this country, Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell told his fellow citizen’s in his State of the State Address that the Federal Government is prohibiting Alaska from developing and growing and using its resources according to the needs of her people. Parnell cited history stating that Alaskans believed when they joined the Union that they would be free to develop resources.

Stating opposition to a plan that would set aside an area of land the size of California to protect polar bears, Parnell said the federal government and others have abused the Endangered Species Act to exert governmental power and take away state sovereignty.

With statehood, the strong assumption prevailed that, as a fledgling state, we would be allowed to develop our own resources without constant federal interference.

Today, however, the federal government’s actions often seem at war with Alaskan interests.

The federal government has misused the Endangered Species Act as a regulatory weapon to delay development of Alaska’s resources. Now, they have proposed setting aside an area larger than the state of California as critical habitat for polar bears. I strongly oppose such overreactive ESA listings and critical habitat designations. These are job killers and beyond the feds authority.

Additionally, when they tried to deny access to lands, I told the Interior secretary how this harms Alaska’s economy and intrudes on the culture and way of life of many Alaskans.

With the Tongass National Forest, I have strongly urged the secretary of agriculture to maintain the current exemption from the national roadless policy. And if that is not enough, my administration will not hesitate to take the issue to court.

And now, the federal government hyperextends its reach by proposing to zone the oceans. They call it “marine spatial planning.” But the wild and shifting seas were never meant to be defined by little square boxes of regulated activity. Fish do not check their maps and get their passports stamped as they swim from zone to zone.

National oceans policy should be rational, should recognize the important role of coastal states, and should strike a balance between our ocean protection and commercial activities, like our fisheries and oil and gas production.

But beyond escalating federal agency intrusion, Alaskans have another fight on our hands – and this time, it is with Congress.

I have expressed great concern to congressional leadership over legislation that would disregard our people’s cultural and economic needs. We can manage our own predator and prey species.

Besides trying to manage our wildlife, they are now trying to manage us.

Citizens of this country are growing weary of the big hand of government overreaching anything that closely resembles the authority given them within the Constitution. Many states are lining up to do as much as they can to reclaim their state’s rights, their sovereignty. Alaska is no different. They all intend to send a message and get back their rights.

Polar bears are not endangered and now we have all learned that the fear mongering over man-made global warming was nothing more than man-made lies. Alaska knows its people and needs far better than some slick dude in Washington with an agenda.

Government has overstepped and the people are now beginning to react. They don’t want that kind of intrusion into their lives.

Tom Remington

Related Articles

• Polar Bears In “Risky” Ocean Swim? (0)
• Will The Designation Of Polar Bear Critical Habitat Grow More Ice? (2)
• Obama Must Hate Wolves And Polar Bears (2)
• Black Bear Blog’s Top 10 Stories Of 2008 – Author’s Choice (8)
• Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar New Interior Secretary? (3)
• Top Ten Black Bear Blog Stories Of 2009 (1)
• It’s Settled! Obama’s “Restore Scientific Process” Means His Science (7)

Photo by Al Remington

Photo by Al Remington

Related Articles

• Wolves Taking Only Sick And Weakly Not Historical Fact (12)
• Got Watchdog? (0)
• A Warning To Outdoor Users About Echinococcus, From Worms (23)
• Going Green! (1)
• Everything Grows Anew Come Spring (0)
• Alaska Moose With A 9 Handicap (0)
• There Must Be Something To Eat Around Here (0)

By George Dovel

The top photo to the left is Hydatid cysts infect lungs, liver, and other internal organs of big game animals. Michigan DNR Wildlife Disease Lab photo.
The photo just under it is Hydatid cysts infecting moose or caribou lungs. Photo courtesy of NW Territories Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

My first Outdoorsman article on hydatid disease caused by the tiny Echinococcosis granulosus tapeworm was published nearly 40 years ago. Back then we had many readers in Alaska and northern Canada where the cysts were present in moose and caribou and my article included statistics on the number of reported human deaths from these cysts over a 50-year period, and the decline in deaths once outdoorsmen learned what precautions were necessary to prevent humans from being infected.

In Alaska alone, over 300 cases of hydatid disease in humans had been reported since 1950 as a result of canids (dog family), primarily wolves, contaminating the landscape with billions of E. granulosus eggs in their feces (called “scat” by biologists). These invisible eggs are ingested by grazing animals, both wild and domestic, and occasionally by humans who release clouds of the eggs into the air by kicking the scat or picking it up to see what the wolf had been eating.

As with many other parasites, the eggs are very hardy and reportedly exist in extremes of weather for long periods, virtually blanketing patches of habitat where some are swallowed or inhaled. As Dr. Valerius Geist explained in his Feb-Mar 2006 Outdoorsman article entitled Information for Outdoorsmen in Areas Where Wolves Have Become Common, “(once they are ingested by animals or humans) the larvae move into major capillary beds – liver, lung, brain – where they develop into large cysts full of tiny tapeworm heads.”

He continued, “These cysts can kill infected persons unless they are diagnosed and removed surgically. It consequently behooves us (a) to insure that this disease does not become widespread, and (b) that hunters and other outdoorsmen know that wolf scats and coyote scats should never be touched or kicked.”

Dr. Geist’s article also warned, “If we generate dense wolf populations it is inevitable that such lethal diseases as Hydatid disease become established.” Because wolves and other canines perpetuate the disease by eating the organs of animals containing the cysts, and the tapeworms live and lay millions of eggs in their lower intestines, the logical way to insure the disease did not develop was not to import Canadian wolves that were already infected with the parasites.

Despite Warnings From Experts. FWS and IDFG Ignored Diseases, Parasites Spread by Wolves

This was common knowledge among wildlife biologists in northern Canada and in Alaska where FWS biologist Ed Bangs was stationed prior to being assigned to head the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Team. Yet in the July 1993 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) provided to the public, Bangs chose not to evaluate the impact of wolf recovery on diseases and parasites (1993 DEIS page 1-17).

This alarmed a number of experts on pathogens and parasites, including Will Graves who began his career working to eradicate foot and mouth disease in Mexico. As an interpreter who conducted research of Russian wolf impacts on wildlife, livestock and humans for several decades, Graves provided Bangs with information that wolves in Russia carry 50 types of worms and parasites, including Echinococcosis and others with various degrees of danger to both animals and humans.

In his Oct. 3, 1993 written testimony to Bangs, Graves also cited the results of a 10-year Russian control study in which failure to kill almost all of the wolves by each spring resulted in up to 100% parasite infection rate of moose and wild boar with an infection incidence of up to 30-40 per animal. This compared to a 31% infection rate with an incidence of only 3-5 per animal where wolves were nearly eliminated each winter.

Graves’ letter emphasized that despite the existence of foxes, raccoons and domestic dogs, wolves were always the basic source of parasite infections in moose and boar. He also emphasized the toll this would take on livestock producers and, along with other expert respondents, requested a detailed study on the potential impact wolves would have in regard to carrying, harboring and spreading disease.

In the final 414-page Gray Wolf EIS (FEIS) dated April 14, 1994, only a third of a page addresses “Diseases and Parasites to and from Wolves” (Chapter 5 Page 55). It states: “Most respondents who commented on this issue expressed concern about diseases and parasites introduced wolves could transfer to other animals in recovery areas.”

Bangs’ response states, “Wolves will be given vaccinations when they are handled to reduce the chances of them catching diseases from coyotes and other canids. Then Bangs stated, “Wolves will not significantly increase the transmission of rabies and other diseases,” yet offered nothing to substantiate his false claim.

FWS Implies Graves’ Facts are Only His Opinion

In “Appendices” Page 59, Bangs included a letter from FWS NRM Wolf Recovery Coordinator Steve Fritts to a Russian biology professor (also a member of the IUCN Wolf Specialist Group) asking him whether he thought the information in Mr. Graves’ letter is correct. On Page 60, that professor and another “IUCN Wolf Specialist” responded that Graves’ information “represents the opinion of only one side in (a) long and highly speculative discussion of (the) wolf role in Russia.”

The two Russian wolf advocates failed to refute anything in Will Graves’ testimony yet the inference that his research was speculative rather than factual was apparently the only excuse Bangs used for his failure to heed Graves’ warnings. A dozen years earlier Bangs was the lead author of a Kenai Peninsula research report in which he similarly denied the impact of wolf predation on Alaska moose populations.

As Dr. Geist has pointed out, the existence of hydatid disease (and other unique parasites and diseases in wild mammals and fish that some of us are not used to) is a fact of life that you learn to live with in the north country – or in many other places you choose to live or visit. The wildlife management agencies in Alaska and many of the Canadian provinces provide field guides explaining how to protect yourself and your animals from unique wildlife diseases and parasites you may encounter.

But although Idaho has the most wilderness in the lower 48 states, it has 15 times as many people per square mile as Alaska, countless more pets and domestic animals and 150 times as many cattle. Any of these creatures found in areas where wolves traveled at some time of the year are at risk of becoming infected with the cysts – or if dogs – becoming carriers of the worms and distributors of the eggs which infect other animals and humans with hydatid disease.

The highly touted testing of blood and fecal samples from live-trapped deer, elk, etc. does not reveal the existence of hydatid cysts, yet that was the only reported testing performed for 10-1/2 years after the first wolves were released in central Idaho and Yellowstone Park. In a January 2005 Outdoorsman article, I provided a photo of hydatid cysts in moose lungs, described the disease, and suggested legislators would benefit from the type of information provided by Alaska and Canada.

IDFG Officially Discovered Hydatid Disease in 2005-06

In mid 2005, state wildlife health officials in Idaho began conducting necropcies (post mortem examinations) of many wildlife species. As in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin, they found a number of the primary big game species they tested were infected with hydatid cysts – but only the Great Lakes wildlife agencies reported that fact to the public.

As a matter of fact, by the time Dr. Geist’s warning about hydatid cysts appeared in the Feb-Mar 2006 Outdoorsman, I also published Minnesota’s finding that wolves were infecting livestock pastures and moose habitat with Neospora caninum, the parasite that causes abortions in cattle and moose and other members of the deer family. The upper left photo of hydatid cysts on the first page of this article was copied from information provided to its citizens by the Michigan DNR.

It is reasonable to assume that Michigan DNR’s publication of warnings to use protective gear when handling wolf scat and wolf carcasses and not let your dog eat internal organs from deer, moose, etc. may have saved a significant number of hunters and/or their children from becoming infected with hydatid disease.

It is also reasonable to assume that Idaho Fish and Game’s failure to publish similar warnings during the four hunting seasons that have come and gone since the disease was officially discovered in Idaho may have allowed a significant number of Idaho hunters and/or their children to become infected with hydatid disease.

On December 13, 2009 in Idaho Hunting Today and other Black Bear Blog websites, Tom Remington first revealed the results of the Washington laboratory checking Idaho and Montana wolf intestines for E. granulosus tapeworms. Mr. Remington was probably not aware of the 10-page September 2006 IDFG Wildlife Health Laboratory (WHL) Report which included only the following sentence about IDFG’s discovery of hydatid disease in mule deer, elk and a mountain goat during necropsy (post mortem) examinations of various species:

“In addition, 1 mountain goat and several mule deer and elk were found to have hydatid cysts in the lungs (Echinococcus granulosa), likely with wolves as the definitive host of this previously unrecognized parasite in the state.”

The report states: “Wolf necropsies indicated the presence of lice,” but makes no mention of finding E. granulosus eggs in the wolf feces or adult worms in the wolf intestines. It also mentions examining fecal samples from 10 live wolves that were captured but again there is no mention of the existence of the eggs which resulted in the deer, elk and a goat being infected with hydatid disease.

The report, published by IDFG Director Steve Huffaker, was signed by IDFG Veterinarians Mark Drew and Phil Mamer and approved by IDFG Wildlife Program Coordinator Dale Toweill and IDFG Wildlife Bureau Chief (now Deputy Director) Jim Unsworth.

Yet the September 2007 WHL Report published by new IDFG Director Cal Groen and signed by the same four IDFG officials states:

“Wolf necropsies indicated the continued presence of lice (Trichodectes canis) and tape worm (Echinococcus), previously detected last year in Idaho. Wolves are most likely the definitive host of this previously unrecognized parasite in the state”. (emphasis added)

In other words this 2007 Report admitted the worms were discovered in wolves in 2005-2006 but failed to mention the hydatid cysts that were also discovered in mule deer, elk and the mountain goat. The 2008 IDFG WHL Report contained exactly the same sentence about tapeworms in wolves as the 2007 report but again failed to mention the diseased deer and elk.

To most of us the announcement of one more tapeworm found in a canine, especially a tiny one whose name we can neither pronounce nor remember, hardly merits a second glance. But when that worm is a new biotype that has never been reported south of the U.S-Canadian border, is already infecting deer and elk with a disease known to range from benign to debilitating to occasionally fatal in humans, and is obviously being spread by wolves across thousands of square miles, that would raise red flags of concern in most intelligent people.

Most legislators and F&G Commissioners who received a copy of the September 2006 WHL Report that actually mentioned the hydatid cysts being found in deer and elk, did not find the word “disease” and had no clue what the presence of the cysts implied. It was the F&G Department’s responsibility to explain the parasite’s life cycle and provide the public with precautions that should be taken when skinning or handling wolves or their pelts.

Photo caption: I regularly receive emails with photos like this from successful wolf hunters in Idaho who are “hugging” (posing with) the animals without wearing disposable gloves and face masks to prevent the threat of infection from touching the pelt with bare hands.

Funding of the activities reported in the WHL Annual Reports discussed earlier is part hunter and fisherman license funds and part P-R and D-J federal excise taxes paid by those same hunters and fishermen. The projects are approved and the federal funds administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) – the same agency that shares responsibility with IDFG for introducing the non-native wolves and their non-native parasites and diseases.

If Fish and Game officials had told the media, Idaho citizens and their legislators the truth about the spread of hydatid disease by excessive numbers of wolves when they first knew of its existence, the public outcry would almost certainly have prevented managing for up to five times as many wolves as was agreed upon.

In 2008 when IDFG Director Groen and Idaho Fish and Game Commissioner Gary Power informed the Legislature of their intention not to reduce the number of wolves in Idaho, both had known about the rapid spread of E. granulosis in wolves and the resulting spread of hydatid disease in elk and deer for several years. In fact, in August of 2006, IDFG Veterinarian Mark Drew made a presentation to the Wildlife Disease Association Annual Meeting at the University of Connecticut titled “Possible introduction of parasites with wolves in Idaho.”

ID, MT F&G Ignored Responsibility to Warn Public

Instead of fulfilling their responsibility to see that hunters and ranchers in Idaho and Montana received instruction on how to protect themselves from becoming infected, from 2006-2008 Drew and two of his counterparts from Montana participated in the evaluation of the lower intestines of 123 more wolves from Idaho and Montana. This is the study reported by Tom Remington on Dec. 13, 2009, in which 62% of Idaho wolves and 63% of Montana wolves contained E. granulosis tapeworms, and 71% of all the wolves tested contained Taenia sp, also predicted by Will Graves.

The study report says: “The detection of thousands of tapeworms per wolf was a common finding,” and also said: “Based on our results, the parasite is now well established in wolves in these states and is documented in elk, mule deer, and a mountain goat as intermediate hosts.” Of the wolves that contained E. granulosis, more than half contained more than 1,000 worms per wolf.

To put that in perspective, if each tapeworm can produce up to 1,000 eggs every 10 days for two years as is reported, 1,000 wolves with 1,000 tapeworms each are capable of spreading up to 73 billion eggs over the landscape in two years! The study provided a map of wolf locations indicating that areas with the highest known wolf density also have the highest percent of infected wolves (exactly as predicted by Dr. Geist).

The study reported that the prevalence of E. granulosis tapeworms in wolves in Canada, Alaska and Minnesota varied from 14% to 72% and said the 63% rate found in Idaho and Montana was comparable. But if one subtracts the strip across southern Idaho where few wolves exist and only two that were tested had the parasite, the prevalence of tapeworms in the areas with higher wolf densities was almost 90 percent!

During the past 20 years, medical case histories suggest that the course of the northern (sylvatic) strain of Hydatid Disease where wolves infect wild cervids (deer, elk, moose, etc.) is normally less severe on most humans than the domestic (pastoral) strain where dogs infect domestic sheep and other ruminants. The authors of the wolf parasite study used this information to try to downplay the potential impact of hydatid disease transmitted by wolves to humans in Idaho and Montana.

They also included the following statement to create the false impression that there is limited chance of Idaho and Montana residents becoming infected: “Most human cases of hydatid disease have been detected in indigenous peoples who hunt wild cervids or are reindeer herders with dogs.” At least part of that statement is accurate because most of the people who live in isolated areas and are more exposed are either Indians or Eskimos.

But they neglect to mention that several hundred thousand people in Idaho and Montana also hunt wild cervids and thousands more work or recreate where wolves have contaminated the land and drinking water with the parasite eggs. Unless the cysts are formed in the brain, heart, spleen or kidneys, infected people may carry them undetected for years, while they slowly grow larger until they eventually create severe problems or death.

Because the death of most people from so-called natural causes is attributed to heart failure, etc., without an autopsy being performed, the actual number of deaths resulting from hydatid disease remains a matter of speculation. Case histories reveal that detection of hydatid disease in living humans often occurs as a result of a CT Scan or Ultrasound performed for another reason.

Dr. Geist’s reply to the lack of concern expressed for humans who will become infected was, “It’s nothing to fool around with. Getting an Echinococcus cyst of any kind is no laughing matter as it can grow not only on the liver or the lungs, but also in the brain. And then it’s fatal.”

He also asked if another parasite, E, multilocularis, found in Alberta wolves, also exists in the transplanted wolves in Idaho and Montana. “(It‘s) much more virulent than Echinococcus granulosus of any strain, we cannot encapsulate this cyst, and it grows and buds off like a cancer infecting different parts of the body incessantly.”

(NOTE: Three separate studies conducted over a 10-year period in Minnesota concluded that 87% of moose mortality is related to parasites and infectious diseases. The insanity of pretending to restore “healthy” ecosystems by allowing uncontrolled large carnivores to spread parasites and diseases is becoming painfully obvious – ED)

Related Articles

• A Warning To Outdoor Users About Echinococcus, From Worms (23)
• Panel Roundtable: Canadian Gray Wolf Introduction into Yellowstone (6)
• USFWS Basically Ignored Concerns About Disease From Wolves Before Reintroduction (4)
• Are Idaho Wildlife Biologists “Really That Dumb”? (3)
• Hydatid Disease Isn’t About Fear But About Health And Education (14)
• Montana’s Wolf Recovery Act: An Exercise In “We The People”? (3)
• Will Graves’ Comments To Environmental Quality Council On Hydatid Disease (1)

Photo by Al Remington

Photo by Al Remington

Related Articles

• High Noon In Alaska (0)
• Milt’s Corner – First Day Of Winter (0)
• Got Watchdog? (0)
• Counting Caribou (1)
• Going Green! (1)
• Sarah Palin’s Last Day As Governor Of Alaska (8)
• Everything Grows Anew Come Spring (0)

Photo by Al Remington

Related Articles

• Going Green! (1)
• Everything Grows Anew Come Spring (0)
• Three Bull Moose Encounter In Maine (1)
• Alaska Moose With A 9 Handicap (0)
• There Must Be Something To Eat Around Here (0)
• I Had Just Settled Down For A Long Winter’s Nap (1)
• Oh Well, It’s Cold Outside (0)