Are Idaho Wildlife Biologists “Really That Dumb”?

The January 2010 issue of The Outdoorsman is out and full of tons of information about the ongoing debate in the Idaho, Montana, Wyoming areas where it has been found that introduced wolves are infected with tapeworms that can cause cystic hydatid disease. These worms can result in troubles with wild ungulate populations, they can be carried by domestic dogs, sheep, foxes, etc. and eventually end up causing health risk problems for humans, possibly resulting in death.

In this latest issue, editor George Dovel wrote an article titled, “IDFG “White Paper” Response to Concerns About Wolves Introducing New Strain of Hydatid Disease”. This addresses the fact that Idaho Fish and Game officials ignored warnings from the Centers for Disease Control, as well as evidence on the ground, and played down any possible serious health risks from this disease.

Fish and Game Regional Supervisor Chip Corsi emailed employees that he directly supervises and said:

“Some of you may have seen the latest from George Dovel’s “The Outdoorsman”. Based on Mark’s (IDFG veterinarian Mark Drew) assessments (attached), human health risk is quite low, provided you avoid consuming things like canid feces and uncooked organs; and I think suggests Dovel’s interpretation is more than a bit sensationalized. If you are handling wolves or coyotes, wear gloves. Risk to humans does not appear to be any greater than with other parasites found in wildlife that we, and hunters/trappers, routinely handle.”

It is highly laughable that a paid professional would in his attempt to scoff at Dovel’s concern for human health and safety, state that Dovel was being “more than a bit sensationalized”. This comes right after telling his employees, in his own being “more than a bit sensationalized”, that the only way you can be at risk of contracting hydatid disease is to eat “canid feces”.

This is of course absurd and should be exposed for what it is. For more on the disease, the risks and what you can do to reduce chances of infection, follow these links, here, here, here. I also plan to cover this issue more at a later date. Stay tuned.

Back to George Dovel’s column. He states that he has received numerous emails from veterinarians about Corsi’s comments about eating wolf scat and they want to know if Idaho Fish and Game biologists are that dumb? That’s a good question. Are they?

Maybe Dovel answers that question in a separate article in the same January issue. As is Dovel’s signature of writing, he goes to lengths to present readers with the facts about hydatid disease, covering some of its history, actual cases, how they were treated and on and on, supplying also links to where readers can get more facts and information.

His frustration begins to show as he points out the wildlife officials efforts to, not only downplay the potential risks to humans but efforts to cover up the facts. Does any of this make any sense? Are wildlife officials really that dumb?

Interestingly, Dovel includes a brief “editor’s note” at the conclusion of his article.

(NOTE: A comparison of these statements from medical doctors whose agenda is to protect private citizens from disease, with the statements from wildlife officials whose agenda is to protect wolves and their parasites from private citizens, is revealing. – ED)

As I said, I think Dovel answered the query of the veterinarians in making that statement. One would assume (arguable) that dumbness would not permit a wildlife biologist to land a job or perhaps even get a degree. From that perspective then it must be mostly about agendas, the agenda to protect the wolves at all cost.

But let’s not point a finger at just Chip Corsi and IDFG veterinarian Mark Drew. Even Ed Bangs, head wolf recovery person for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has made every effort to protect his valuable wolves, seemingly at the expense of public safety. He’s gone so far as to scoff at and demonize those who are attempting to educate the public about the presence of disease, that happens to be carried by introduced wolves.

I personally find it revealing the actions taken by the collective “wolf advocates”; very defensive while downplaying the risks and demonizing those like George Dovel. I have covered this story since it first came to light about two-thirds of the wolves found to be laced with worms in Idaho and Montana. I’ve communicated with George Dovel, Dr. Valerius Geist, Dr. Charles Kay, Will Graves, as well as others, and done a lot of reading and research. Not one of these people or the heads of several sportsman’s groups have, from what I have seen, used this opportunity to exploit wolves and demand they be killed to solve the problem.

To copy Dovel’s comment, let me say that a comparison of statements and actions by wildlife officials and those of scientists and outdoor sportsmen groups, is very revealing.

Dr. Valerius Geist said it this way.

The pro and contra machinations pertaining to wolves are of little concern here. What is important is that people living or recreating in areas with hydatid disease take precautions, while steps have to be undertaken to eradicate the disease.

Would you rather listen to Dr. Geist’s advice or that of a Idaho Fish and Game supervisor saying there is no danger unless you eat wolf &^@#?

Yes, it is quite revealing!

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

How Pristine Where Our Ecosystems Before Western Exploration?

Oh, if only we could return to the days before man got into our wilderness areas and destroyed everything. Imagine how wonderful it must have been. Nature doing a fine job all on its own and then all of a sudden man expands his reach and destroys it all.

This is what I hear all the time. Even our education factories teach our kids this inaccurate history. Few have ever heard of what it was really like. I know I have had many discussions with people about the Lewis and Clark Expedition. I admit I was one of those who dreamed about how wonderful it must have been. What could be more exciting to a man who loved the outdoors than to be a member of the Lewis and Clark troop? This would provide a participant the opportunity to see the forests, the plains, the rivers, the valleys, the birds, deer, moose, elk, bison, mountain goats, wild sheep, tons of beaver, muskrat, mink, lynx, bobcat, mountain lions, coyotes, wolves, oh, my. What am I forgetting. I might have been in for a rude awakening had I been there.

Lewis and Clark mounted their expedition from around 1804-1806 and their journey was quite well documented. We know that they took along “professional” hunters and trappers to provide food for the members. Logs show Lewis and Clark spent much of their time trading with Indians for dogs to eat because there was no game.

During the years of 1825-1860, Jedediah Smith, Peter Skeen Ogden, Milton Sublette, Joe Meek, John Fremont, Charles Preuss, Captain J. H. Simpson, and Howard Egan, explored all over the West, both on foot and horseback. They kept diaries and logs of their adventures and these accounts describe a much different picture of what it was really like before man moved into this region and settled.

Jedediah Smith is believed to be one of the first explorers of this region. In 1827, Smith and what was described as two of his best men, set out up the American River, through Central Nevada and ending up at Lake Lake, Utah. Smith’s log describes this trip accordingly.

After traveling 22 days from the east side of Mount Joseph, (Sierra Nevada’s) I struck the Southwest corner of the Great Salt Lake, traveling over a country completely barren and destitute of game. We frequently traveled without water, sometime for two days, over sandy deserts where there was no sign of vegetation and when we found water in some of the rocky hills we most generally found Indians who appeared the most miserable of the human race. When we arrived at the Salt Lake, we had but one horse and one mule remaining, which were so feeble and poor that they could scarcely carry the little camp equipage which I had along. The balance of my horses I was compelled to eat.

This expedition originally began with 14 men and 28 horses.

In 1828 Peter Skeen Ogden led an expedition into North Central Nevada. In an area that is now near Winnemucca, Nevada on the Humboldt River (Marys River), what was seen is described this way.

From clumps of sage on the hillsides, scrawny, brown-bodied men peered out upon their passage. Down in the Valley, now and again, the Indians scurried into the brush ahead of them. They were clothed, if at all, in twisted rabbit skins; They had no horses. They lived on seeds, and what wild fowl they could bring down. Ogden had never encountered a race of animals less entitled to the name of man.

The following year Ogden returned to the same area to do some trapping on the river. He describes the river as being very “unwholesome” and says the antelope, which during this time would be near the rivers are scarce. He declares, “woe to them who depend to them for support”.

In 1832 Milton Sublette led a group of trappers into the Marys River (Humboldt). There was no game and the trappers had to eat the beavers they had been trapping. His reports stated that there was not much for what wild animals there were to eat and that they were forced to eat wild parsnips, which poisoned them. The group had to leave this area and head north where they hoped to find something to eat.

Because of this it became necessary to at once abandon the river, and strike across the country towards the North, where after being four days with almost no food, and several weeks in the state of famine they reached the Snake River above the fishing Falls, they were forced, as they passed through the country, to subsist upon ants, crickets, parched moccasins, and the pudding made from the blood, taking a pint at a time from their almost famished animals.

Joe Meek recalls holding his bare hands in an anthill until they were covered with angry ants and then licking the ants off and eating them like a hungry animal.

Joe Walker later traveled through this same Marys River area and continued on into California near the Truckee River down the West Slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Having left Salt Lake and traveling 14 days into California, the expedition had not seen any game to eat and instead lived off horses they were compelled to kill to ward off starvation.

One man killed a deer, which he carried to camp on his back. The animal was dressed, cooked and eaten, … in less time than a hungry wolf would devour a lamb. This was the first game larger than a rabbit that they had killed since leaving the Salt Lake two months ago. For fourteen days they had lived on nothing but horseflesh …twenty four horses had died in crossing the mountain, and seventeen of these had been eaten.

1825 and 1826 found Ogden covering much of what we all know as Oregon today and not only did his group not find any game but the horses were starving because they couldn’t find even any decent grasses for the horse to feed on. It wasn’t just the explorers finding these wastelands. Ogden relates a story told of an Indian woman in Oregon.

The winter before had been so severe, she said, that her people had to resort to the bodies of relations and children. She had killed no one herself, but had fed on two of her children who died.

Things are pretty harsh when anyone has to resort to cannibalism but to first have to kill somebody to eat them, is unfathomable.

John Fremont and Charles Preuss covered areas of Southern Wyoming west toward the Bear River and then South toward Salt Lake. Things were tough. Game was missing and grazing grasses for the horses were non existent as well. Explorers tried trading with the Indian for food but soon discovered the Indians were starving to death themselves. It was only upon finding the Shoshone camped out along the Snake River, were they able to find a tribe living well from ample supplies of smoked Salmon.

Fremont’s party traveled the Columbia River north into Vancouver finding much the same. They even had to buy firewood from some of the resident Indians. Heading south toward Nevada, local tribes warned Fremont there was nothing for his horses to feed on. They were right.

… They had found nothing but dry, shallow basins, their way “broken by gullies and impeded by sage, and sandy on the hills, where there is not a blade of grass.”

Later Fremont would find Pyramid Lake and gorge on trout.

In all of the travels that are documented by many of these explorers, in what is now the state of Nevada, only one time is there mention of someone sighting an elk, but it is believed the person saw a mule deer and mistook it for an elk.

The Indians in this region mostly lived terrible lives, with little clothing, food or sufficient shelter. They ate mostly rats and insects and what few other birds or small game they might be fortunate to find and kill. We have visions of Indians having access to ample game animals and utilizing the hides for clothing and shelter. Such was not the case in most of the Great Basin.

Howard Egan, Sr. was the first Mormon explorer into the region of the Great Salt Lake. As a matter of fact he traveled there with Brigham Young. Egan covered much of the area between the Salt Lake and west into California as he was in the business of driving cattle there.

Egan recounts for us how the Indians crafted these remarkable corrals they would use to trap antelope. The entire episode of putting on a drive required all the men, women and children of the tribe. One had to question whether the effort put into the building and driving was worth the 24 antelope they trapped in twelve years. But when you’re hungry, some antelope is better than none.

The Indians did a similar thing conducting a cricket drive. No, I’m not kidding. Trenches were dug of about 1 foot wide by 1 foot deep and covered over with a thin layer of stiff grass. All the tribes people would begin pounding the ground with tufts of straw in a concerted effort, to drive the black crickets toward the trenches. Once the trenches contained all the crickets they could drive, they set the grass they had placed over the trenches on fire, killing the crickets. They then used the crickets for food, mostly grinding it up and mixing it with other things to make a concocted kind of flour.

These and more accounts certainly paint a far different picture of how things actually were than what we are often taught about how balanced and bountiful our forests and wilderness were before man arrived. Man certainly made his share of mistakes in being good stewards of the land but in time we figured out what we had to do to sustain game populations and to control the predators that destroyed those.

With the presence of man and bringing with him agriculture and the knowledge to plant and grow crops and tend the land, this began to create a better habitat that would support a heartier and healthier crop of game animals. We controlled the predators so people could harvest the game to feed their families and over time devised a pretty decent wildlife management plan that many around the world now envy.

Sorry, but Mother Nature didn’t really give us a “balanced” ecosystem, at least one that is the most productive. These accounts above I believe more accurately depict Mother Nature’s idea of a balanced ecosystem. There’s nothing wrong with that but I don’t think it is in the best interest of humans to have it that way, nor is it what I think people really want or are thinking about when they speak of “natural” wildlife management.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

How Much Are Mountain Lions “Eating” Into Your Hunting Opportunities?

It seems that mostly what we hear these days is how predators, bears, mountain lions, wolves, coyote, bobcat, etc., have no effect on our deer herds. This of course is not true and is really a dishonest statement. Of course these large predators have an effect on the very areas in which they live. It might be more accurate to say that we don’t really notice the effect they are leaving behind until the game we hunt, which is often the same game these predators hunt, are disappearing.

If we look at the state of Maine as an example, here is a state that in the northern two-thirds there is essentially no more deer left. We have heard all the excuses – severe winters, loss of habitat, poor management, too many predators, etc. What we don’t seem to be getting a grasp on is what happens to our game management plans when the ecosystem gets torn to shreds by either uncontrollable circumstances(weather), or unpredicted effects(predators)?

I was emailing over the weekend with a good friend in Maine about the deer problems there. He made what I consider a profound and very accurate statement. He said, “Everything would be hunky-dory if we had not had two very severe winters in a row. It found all the weak spots in the management of the Maine deer herd.”

While I believe this statement to hold a lot of water, why is it we still are feeling this need to deny discussing some of those weaknesses other than blaming winters and habitat? As I pointed out just a minute ago, predators do make an impact on the very ecosystems that they live. In a robust ecosystem, most of us never pay notice to predators. In other words, there is plenty to go around – at least for now. So what happens when the ecosystem becomes lopsided? What happens when two severe winters in a row decimate a deer herd? What happens when two severe winters in a row finish off a deer herd that has already been weakened due to reduced habitat and too many predators, or at least what now appears as too many predators? These are some of the “weak spots” my friend was referring to.

Let’s take only one example, the mountain lion. But Tom! There are no mountain lions in Maine! Officially, there are no mountain lions in Maine nor are there any wolves and from my perspective it can remain that way until circumstances warrant a change.

Perhaps two months ago, this same friend sent me a photograph he had taken in Maine of what he believed to be a mountain lion kill of a whitetail deer.

I sent the picture for an opinion to some people who I knew had far more experience with mountain lions than either the two of us. Dr. Valerius Geist, a renowned biologist and expert on ungulates, commented this way:

We live in the boonies surrounded by large predators, including mountain lions. Deer vacate the land when puma show up. We know that from old work done with radio collared mountain lions and deer. So, no big surprise that the deer have vanished. Why the surprise over puma being present in the East?

I also got a response from George Dovel, editor of the Outdoorsman and years of experience in the outdoors.

Let me emphasize I am neither a cougar expert nor an expert cougar (mountain lion) hunter but I was a close friend to and hunted with the most successful Idaho lion hunter of the 20th century, *** *****, for a few years. During the 18 years I lived in what is now the Frank Church Wilderness I examined a fair number of cougar kills and, in those I examined closely on snow, I determined the lion always dragged the carcass at least a short distance once it killed or paralyzed the animal, and often – but not always – covered it. If the kill was not concealed by brush and/or trees and also covered by leaves, needles or other debris as in your photo, it was quickly discovered by magpies, ravens or eagles. The photo you provided might indicate a typical mountain lion kill.

So I have at least stirred up the idea in you that mountain lions might be around in a few places in Maine. What effect will this mountain lion have on the whitetail deer population within its territory? Under “normal” circumstances, probably none that would get noticed by the average hunter/outdoorsman. But what if the deer herd began shrinking because of winter kill, loss of habitat, etc.?

In the spring edition of North American Whitetail Magazine, 2010, Volume 28, Number 2, there is an article in there by Dr. James C. Kroll. He writes,

Although many state wildlife agencies still won’t admit they have lions, the public is now well aware they exist in a number of places. And, they can have a real impact on whitetails. In general, a male lion will eat one deer per week, while a female with young will eat two deer per week. The hidden blessing is that lions tend to have very large home ranges, and they therefore don’t defend their territories as vigorously as wolves or bears do.

If the mountain lion was ranging over territory that comprise whitetail deer populations that were healthy in numbers, let’s say 20 or more deer per square mile, I doubt any of us would ever much notice the deer the lion took out. Dare I say, we probably would not know the lion existed. But what if this lion was now living in the same territory where the population of deer has been reduced to 2, 3 or 4 deer per square mile. Being a good hunter, a hungry lion can finish off what remains of a deer herd within its territory, if it’s eating a deer or two per week. If the lion doesn’t completely wipe it out, it certainly can hamper the rebuilding effort or make it difficult to sustain a herd.

So now we are looking at a real predator problem, well, that is if one wants to maintain a deer herd. Where once the lion would go unnoticed, now hunters want to know where the deer all went. Predators do have an effect on whitetail deer numbers and under Maine’s circumstances one mountain lion ranging about an area with a drastically reduced deer herd, can finish it off. It’s now a problem. So, why not admit it?

Managing deer in Northern Maine, as well as parts of Downeast and the mountains in the west, is a challenge simply because geographically, these areas sit on the outer fringes of whitetail deer range. There will always be severe winters here and there and as my friend said, those bad winters show up the weaknesses in the deer management plan. If Maine wants to keep a deer herd in these areas, it best be plugging up some of these holes so that the severe winters, when they hit, won’t have such a devastating effect on the herd.

We can start by admitting that predators do have an impact on deer herds. How much we notice depends on certain conditions, some of which we are witness to now. We need to more closely monitor and manage predator numbers of bear, coyote, bobcats, as well as reduce competition for food and habitat between deer and moose.

None of this will be easy but a repeated denial that predators matter, isn’t going to cut it anymore.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Interview With Will Graves: Author, “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through The Ages”

Below is an interview, moderated by Jim Beers, with Will Graves, author. It took place on January 24, 2010 in response to reports of cystic Hydatid disease from worms that have been reported in wolves in Idaho and Montana.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak.

Learn more about Will Graves below.

~~~~~

The following interview took place on 24 January 2010.

Q: Will, didn’t you work and travel extensively in Asia, Europe, and Africa during your career with the US government?
A: Yes. I was very fortunate to visit and work with a variety of people in places such as Germany, Russia, Kazakhstan, Poland, Siberia, the Karellian Peninsula, Iran, Greece, Spain, Turkey, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Italy to name a few.

Q: What did you learn about wolves based on your travels and work in these foreign lands?
A: First and foremost, that the management of wolves depends entirely on people and not on any so-called “balance of nature”. When management and control of wolf numbers and their distribution is absent, the damage to human life, livestock, domestic animals like dogs, and wildlife increases as wolf numbers and densities increase. Unlike other large predators, wolves are very adaptable, wide-ranging, pack animals that keep expanding their range both as individuals and as packs that expand as food and opportunities present themselves.

I was amazed at how little attention was being paid to both the visible danger of wolves and the hidden potential for the spread of diseases affecting people and other animals when wolves were being Re-introduced into Yellowstone Park in the 1990’s. The lack of discussion and preparation for controlling wolves and the absence of any candid description of historical and current wolf experiences and research worldwide struck me as a potential problem of great magnitude.

In addition to the substantiated deaths of many rural people especially in Russia, particularly children and women year around, outbreaks of wolf attacks on humans occur periodically in severe winters or when wolves become habituated to humans when they are not hunted as during World War II in Russia or when their numbers and densities increase with resulting losses of certain prey animals. They are particularly dangerous when they become increasingly bold around humans and human habitations. When wolves come into Russian villages or begin appearing at rural American school bus stops or when, as I was recently told by a Montana rancher, one came into his yard and actually looked in a window of his home, this is a very dangerous situation and almost certainly a prelude to an attack. While trying to chase off such animals is futile, removing such animals should be done immediately. However, this is merely a stopgap because other nearby wolves are likely to soon adopt similar behavior; when wolves exist routinely in such proximity to humans, history and research in Russia show this to be a dangerous situation requiring constant caution and constant control of the wolves.

Also in addition to the observable losses of cattle, sheep, domestic geese and turkeys, pet dogs, herding dogs, hunting dogs, watchdogs, and wildlife like deer, elk, and moose, there is the hidden damage from the stress of constant harassment of chasing and stalking all the surviving animals resulting in reduced physical capacities to survive and reproduce. This resulting stress leads to reduced resistance to disease and reduced weight and stamina that constitutes a significant loss to ranchers, farmers, hunters, rural residents and wildlife populations in my opinion.

Q: Didn’t you begin your career as a US technician working in Mexico to detect and eradicate livestock diseases?
A: That’s correct. My first job for the government was in the USDA Bureau of Animal Industry program as Chief of a “horseback-only” Inspecting, Vaccinating, and Slaughtering Brigade in a tropical rainforest in Mexico. Our goal was to stamp out the foot-and-mouth disease. My Brigade was based in Cozalapa, Oaxaca, Mexico.

Q: Will, today there is growing concern about wolves in North America and especially about wolves as carriers and vectors of diseases and infections such as tapeworms. What diseases, if any, are wolves susceptible to?
A: I am not a disease expert but I have had a lifelong interest in animal diseases and their pathology, especially the more infectious diseases. In 1978 a Russian Biology Degree candidate noted that wolves carried Brucellosis, Deer Fly Fever, Listerosis, Anthrax, and other diseases. Another Russian scientist noted that the wolf can be infected with more than 50 types of parasites including various tapeworms as you just mentioned. Other Russian specialists have reported that wolves are potential vectors of foot-and-mouth disease. Wolves, just like other Canid animals such as dogs and coyotes are susceptible to and can carry rabies, distemper, and other dangerous infections like Neosporum caninum that causes abortions in grazing animals like livestock and big game animals such as elk, deer, and moose.

Q: Can you describe how some of these diseases are spread and how this affects rural communities where wolves are present?
A: Yes. You mentioned Hydatid diseases or tapeworms earlier. There are quite a few species of tapeworms and several are fairly common in wolves. When infected wolves defecate, minute tapeworm eggs are present and may become airborne when the feces dries so kicking or handling wolf feces is not advisable. The eggs may be deposited on nearby grasses, berries, mushrooms or other plants with water runoff after rains or even heavy dew. These eggs are readily passed onto dogs that commonly have a habit of smelling other canid’s feces and often rolling in it. When the dog returns home it may lick the owner or drool in places leaving eggs on objects but most significant is the fact the dog introduces the eggs into the human living space where toddlers and others are exposed to airborne eggs or eggs on surfaces that may enter the lungs or mouth or a cut. Dogs with tapeworms often drag their anus on the floor to relieve the itching that results from the tapeworms that are spreading inside them, thereby further infecting the human living space. In Kazakhstan, where wolves are common, research indicates that rural dogs have tapeworm infection rates several times higher than that of their urban cousins. In many areas of Asia and Eastern Europe it is a long-standing tradition that dogs are unclean and thus are never allowed into buildings of any kind. Like the tradition of not eating pork in some cultures, traditions like no-dogs in homes and ritual washing of hands when entering another’s house are speculatively attributed to avoiding diseases historically associated with dogs.

Wolves, like dogs, can carry these parasites without noticeable effect while they range far and wide.
Livestock such as cattle and sheep are susceptible to infection of the tapeworms carried by wolves. One case of a horse infected with tapeworms in Washington State was recently noted. To the best of my knowledge, infected domestic livestock are mildly debilitated, although the chances of the worms entering organs would make the animal more vulnerable to disease and potentially less healthy in an overall sense. Domestic livestock can be vaccinated for tapeworms.

Wild big game animals like deer, elk, moose and mountain sheep are also susceptible to infection with tapeworms. Infected animals, like infected livestock, show little outward signs of the infection but they are similarly debilitated by various problems like shortness of breath from infected lungs. More problematic however is the likelihood of other kinds of infections in their less healthy state, and in my opinion their becoming more vulnerable to environmental factors like predation, winter stress periods, weather extremes, and periodic food scarcities.

Humans that live in or near wolf areas need to be especially knowledgeable and alert. Humans infected by certain tapeworm species carried by wolves risk having cysts and tapeworms incubating in their body for as many as 20 years. The tapeworms may infect the lungs, liver, kidneys, heart, or brain. These last two can be fatal. Diagnosis of emerging symptoms can easily appear to be many other things so that examinations may miss the cause of the problem.

This is a thumbnail sketch of wolves and their relationship to Hydatid Diseases. Other diseases and infections such as Neosporum caninum, a disease probably spread by wolves and causing abortions in livestock and big game animals like deer, elk, and moose need more research, rural awareness and public education about the risks and costs of such infections. Brucellosis, Rabies, Distemper, and Anthrax are other diseases known to be carried and spread by wolves.

There is also speculation that wolves may carry some diseases or infections on their fur or in their paw pads that may be picked up near dead animals or as they pass through infected areas like pastures and big-game wintering areas. Remember that wolves don’t spend their lives in a restricted local area like other wildlife such as most cougars or bears or coyotes or foxes. Individual wolves often roam far and wide and packs have been observed to travel over large and changing areas in the course of a year. Wolves, like dogs, are fairly omnivorous so that when a food source becomes scarce such as disappearing big game or more tightly guarded livestock; wolves are fully capable of moving into new areas and then beginning to feed for example near the edge of a rural community on domestic birds like geese or turkeys or even into towns where wintering big game animals may be seeking safety. Wolves that begin feeding on cattle in pastures just like wolves feeding on big game animals in wintering “yards” will be frequenting pastures or certain wintering yards repeatedly thus compounding the chance of both picking up certain infections and subsequently spreading it to like animals from which the infection originated.

One last thing; there often seems to be many hidden agendas at work whenever we talk about wolves. For instance, when Russians are asked about wolves as vectors for foot-and-mouth disease or anthrax, they are often reluctant to say anything. This might be because of rumors about wolves spreading anthrax from a weaponized anthrax burial site where wolves were able to recently gain access. Anthrax and foot-and-mouth are candidates for biological weaponry research and thus things that can cause trouble for the indiscreet. Similarly in the US discussing claims about wolves “balancing” nature or about their danger to and disruption of rural American life are similarly clothed in fictions and political correctness about everything from lethal controls to federal government liability for damages and harm caused by their wolf protection program.

Q: One last question: what would you recommend that the US and Canada do to avoid the potentially catastrophic effects of a growing and habituating wolf population that threatens rural residents, rural economies, and rural communities today?
A: First, we have to educate the rural and urban publics about the real and hidden effects of wolves. This is a primary function of government in my view. Such education would address candid facts about:
- Lethal wolf damage to livestock and wildlife, and how to avoid it.
- The increased stress on livestock and wildlife and how to minimize it.
- Areas away from people where wolves are to be allowed and areas where they are not allowed.
- The need for constant monitoring and for lethal controls by government where wolves threaten humans.
- Diseases and infections carried and spread by wolves and how to avoid them.
- The dangers of wolf habituation and what it portends.
- The toll on rural watchdogs, hunting dogs, herding dogs, work dogs, and pet dogs that results from wolves and how to minimize it.
- The serious total consequences of these things on rural residents and rural lifestyles if not prevented.

Second, wolves need to be kept as completely as possible out of any areas where they have a probability of interacting with humans routinely. A combination of government hunters, public hunters, and legalizing the killing of problem wolves by threatened citizens without the threat of government prosecution are really permanent necessities as long as maintaining wolf populations in acceptable numbers and areas is to be achieved. This will require expensive but continuous monitoring and research to constantly adjust to wolves and their proven capacity to adapt to human changes throughout thousands of years of recorded history.

Will, thank you for sharing these insights based on your travel and experiences. More Americans than you might imagine owe you a debt of gratitude for taking the time to share this valuable information and your suggestions with us. Jim Beers.

* Details about Will’s book, “WOLVES IN RUSSIA: Anxiety Through The Ages”, may be found at his website: WolvesinRussia.com

Note: If you found this interview worthwhile please share it with every rancher, farmer, dog owner, hunter, politician, friend, and relative that you know. If you know of any publication that would use it, please ask them to publish it. This is a serious matter of national importance and all of us need to understand it before we can come together to resolve it. JB

Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact: jimbeers7atcomcastdotnet

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Hydatid Disease Isn’t About Fear But About Health And Education

I suppose much of the reactions from people about the announcement that wolves in the Idaho, Montana and into Canada regions are infested with worms that can spread hydatid disease, is fueled by the existing and ongoing emotional battle over how best to manage the canines in this region.

Anyone, including myself, who supports a more aggressive approach to limiting (I didn’t say elimination) wolf populations, who attempts to bring to light this public health issue, gets chastised for instilling fear in people because I hate wolves.

We’ve been down this road before and those who read my blog know that isn’t true. So let’s make an effort to dispense with the false accusations and more importantly, let’s not brush off this information as non factual and/or something we don’t need to concern ourselves with.

Dr. Valerius Geist began signaling a small alarm bell when he began reading about what he called, “cavalier attitude[s] towards the disease”. In an email sent to a handful of concerned outdoor sportsmen, Geist says:

The people and contra machinations pertaining to wolves are of little concern here. What is important is that people living or recreating in areas with hydatid disease take precautions, while steps have to be undertaken to eradicate the disease.

Geist’s concern about “cavalier attitudes” came because game officials and news agencies in infected areas was seriously playing it down. It is important to note that Dr. Geist makes the point that the precautions we should take are especially true in known infected areas.

Because the tiny eggs, liberated by the millions in carnivore feces, are dispersed even by tiny air currents, it is important for reasons of personal health not to poke or kick such feces. It will usually be dry. It will then liberate clouds of tape worm eggs and this cloud of eggs will settle on your clothing, your exposed skin, in your sinuses and wind pipe, on your lips and if you inhale through the mouth in your oral cavity. If you lick your lips, the eggs will get into your oral cavity. When sinuses and windpipe clear themselves of inhaled particles with your sputum the eggs will get into your mouth and be swallowed with sputum. If you touch the feces or even poke it chances are the cloud of tiny eggs will also settle on your hands, and may contaminate the food you handle or eat.

People with dogs are at risk because their dogs may feed unbeknown to them on carcasses or gut piles of big game infected with that disease, infecting themselves with dog tape worm. These dogs will defecate in kennels and yards, spreading these tiny eggs. They will also lick their anus and fur spreading the eggs into their fur. The eggs will cling to boots and be carried indoor, where they float about till they settle down as dust. Now everybody is at risk of infection, especially toddlers crawling around on the floor. Putty cats can also be involved.

Dr. Geist consulted with a game biologist colleague in Finland who is studying hydatid disease as there have been outbreaks there due to the increased population of wolves. Kaarlo Nygrén, Game and Fisheries Research Institute, expresses that Dr. Geist is accurate in his observations and says he is not exaggerating in his concerns about the disease. Nygren shares his homeland’s concern about the disease.

I am afraid it will not only affect our staple food and essential part of our heritage, moose, but also us directly. Hunters, dog owners, forest workers, berry and mushroom pickers will indeed be in danger. I agree in all you told in your paper; none of it is exaggeration.

Nygren recalls the last outbreak of the disease occurred in the 60s and 70s in Northern Lapland. The wolf population had grown and brought with it the worms. The reindeer were being destroyed from the disease. All means were used to drastically reduce the population of wolves; from aerial gunning with machine guns to public service announcement teaching people the best ways to kill wolves and deal with the disease.

The latest outbreak is now affecting Finland’s moose.

The moose was almost hairless (for a reason we were unable to confirm) but it had hydatid cysts in many organs, particularly lungs. I sampled the contents by injection needle and in a droplet placed on an objective glass, thousands of things like miniature human skulls with sharp teeth (my first impression!)were seen. This was the first case of E.granulosus for me. I have seen thousands of Taenia cysts in our moose after opening thousands of carcasses but this was something else.

Evidently the worms have been spread by wolves into Sweden.

Keeping wolf populations in check is only part of the equation. The disease has to be eradicated and Dr. Geist suggests the possibility of burning big game winter ranges to kill the eggs and/or beginning a program of establishing medicated bait piles to target certain packs known to be infected.

This isn’t fear mongering or trying to use scare tactics to support anyone’s agenda. This is knowledge everyone who goes into the outdoors or has pets, needs to know. It is extremely important to be aware of this if you know you are living in or being exposed to infected areas. If you don’t know, contact your state’s fish and game department. If they are not testing wolves and/or coyotes in your area, insist that they begin doing so and spread the word to your friends.

Again, this isn’t about killing wolves and coyotes, it’s about keeping you, your children, your pets, your livestock and wildlife healthy. Who can argue with that?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

W.I.S.E.: Human-Habituated Wolves In Idaho

Dr. Valerius Geist, a Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Calgary, has years of studies in wildlife, including wolves and personal encounters with them. In a republished article I did two years ago, Geist provided for us the seven stages of behavior by wolves leading to an attack on a human. These seven stages are well documented throughout history and yet mostly misunderstood or misinterpreted until Dr. Geist was able to piece them all together.

1) Within the pack’s territory prey is becoming scarce not only due to increased predation on native prey animals, but also by the prey evacuating home ranges en mass, leading to a virtual absence of prey. Or wolves increasingly visit garbage dumps at night.

2) Wolves in search of food began to approach human habitations – at night!

3) The wolves appear in daylight and observe people doing their daily chores at some distance. Wolves excel at learning by close, steady observation. They approach buildings during daylight.

4) Small bodied livestock and pets are attacked close to buildings even during the day. The wolves act distinctly bolder in the actions.

5) The wolves explore large livestock, leading to docked tails, slit ears and hocks. Livestock may bolt through fences running for the safety of barns. When the first seriously wounded cattle are found they tend to have severe injuries to the udders, groin and sexual organs and need to be put down. The actions of wolves become more brazen and cattle or horses may be killed close to houses and barns where the cattle or horses were trying to find refuge. Wolves may follow riders and surround them. They may mount verandas and look into windows.

6) Wolves turn their attention to people and approach them closely, initially merely examining them closely for several minutes on end. This is a switch from establishing territory to targeting people as prey. The wolves may make hesitant, almost playful attacks biting and tearing clothing, nipping at limbs and torso. They withdraw when confronted. They defend kills by moving toward people and growling and barking at them from 10 – 20 paces away.

7) Wolves attack people. These initial attacks are clumsy, as the wolves have not yet learned how to take down the new prey efficiently. Persons attacked can often escape because of the clumsiness of the attacks.

I have summarized the information above as provided by Dr. Geist in his publication. Please follow the link and read the important information about this 7-step process.

Yesterday I posted an article that appeared in the Missoulian in 1916 about wolves killing 113 people and 2,000 animals in one year in Korea. One thing in that article that I failed to point out to readers was an account of how wolves would attack people.

In attacking a man it will follow him for a time and occasionally leap over his head, seeking to unnerve him and cause him to fall to the ground, when it will immediately attack and kill. Oftentimes it will summon its mates to assist in attacking.

Compare that account of nearly 100 years ago with Dr. Geist’s stages 6 and 7 above.

The Western Institute for Study of the Environment posted more of this same information yesterday, along with real life accounts in Idaho of the implementation of these stages by wolves taking place there in the state. WISE also provides links to several articles dealing with human habituation by wolves and coyotes and the consequences that can follow. (required reading)

In a newspaper account of the Lewiston Tribune, January 15, 2010, Eric Barker describes what an Idaho outfitter experienced while waiting for a school bus to arrive and pick up his children.

Popp took his children to their bus stop Monday morning and sat in his jeep while his 6- and 8-year-olds had a snowball fight. The bus pulled up, stopped and flashed its lights. The kids got on and the bus driver pulled into a driveway to turn around. When the driver backed up, the bus emitted warning beeps. After it pulled away, three wolves came out of the woods and walked down the road toward Popp.

He started his jeep and drove toward the animals. They left the road and Popp followed their tracks to see where they had come from. He said it was clear they were sitting in the woods about 30 feet away from the road prior to the arrival of the bus.

“While we were there at the bus stop and those kids were snowball-fighting I know they could hear, and they just sat there,” he said. “They are really becoming habituated to all the sights and sounds that are out there.” …

Dr. Geist responded to this account by saying:

This is absolutely classic! Wolves targeting people sit and watch people. Unlike dogs, wolves and coyotes are refined observation learners.

The a) to h) steps [seven stages] you published below are my addition to Will’s book [Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages] (Appendix B.my authorship was left out by oversight); the original paper given in 2005 is now in press, belatedly. A very similar progression was reported in 1999 for urban coyotes targeting children in urban parks by Bob Timm and Rex Baker. Over 200 attacks on children are reported. We are currently co-authoring a paper on this. So, wolves and coyotes target people in an identical manner!(emphasis added)

It is imperative for people venturing into the outdoors and/or living in wolf and coyote populated regions to understand the entire seven stages of behavior. Separately each stage is quite innocuous, with the exception of the final attack. This isn’t an attempt to try to scare people. This information could save a life.

If one will recall documented accounts of encounters with wolves and coyotes, you’ll find that some or all of these stages have been documented. Because the seven stages are spread out over time, what we as humans witness are often just one of the seven stages. Aside from the actual attack itself on humans, livestock and pets, the rest of the stages seem somewhat harmless and as Dr. Geist describes them as “almost playful”.

If we can understand the seven stages and learn to recognize them, it might save a life. The next time you read about or witness an encounter with a wolf or coyote, think about the seven stages and see if you can make a determination as to which stage of behavior is being displayed. This behavior might also give you an indication of the health of the pack and the ecosystem near you.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Uncle Sam As A Destroyer Of “Varmints”

*Editor’s Note*In doing research, I came across this article that appeared in “The American Review of Reviews”, Volume 66 by Albert Shaw, page 550-551, dated 1922.

I found it interesting for a few reasons and thought it would be worth sharing. One reason is that it reveals written history of man’s encounter and struggle with predators as he tried to “tame” the West. Second, it reveals things that people even today deny as common habits for wolves and coyotes in particular – surplus kills by both wolves and coyotes. To be forthcoming, it should be pointed out that often in historic writings of wolves and coyotes in the United States, particularly the plains area, the two names were sometimes used interchangeably. Without knowing exactly the species of canine we are talking about, prairie wolves were often called coyotes.

A third interesting feature written about in the article was a repeated comparison of what these predators were costing citizens, ranchers and the United States Government.

~~~~~

It may be a bit difficult for the average citizen—especially if he happens to live east of the Mississippi—to realize that one of Uncle Sam’s important and difficult jobs recently, has been the hunting down and exterminating of wild animals—wolves, coyotes (prairie wolves), bobcats (bay linx) mountain lions (puma), bears, and like predatory beasts. Yet so much so has this been the case that the subject has been considered in the serious and scientific “Year Book” of the Department of Agriculture, and the article (by W. R. Bell, assistant biologist of the Biological Survey) recently has been republished by the Survey in a special pamphlet. The title of the article is “Hunting Down Stock Killers,” which sounds like the name of a motion picture film, but the process, as conducted, is far more serious business.

On the first page of the pamphlet is shown the reproduction of a photograph of a big touring car, loaded with dead wolves, while a hunter stands alongside holding up a dead wolf, by a hind leg. It doesn’t look much like a picture of a “joy-ride”; and Mr. Bell remarks:

In man’s introduced herds of cattle, sheep, goats, colts and other domestic stock, the original rangers of the country found a ready supply to be preyed upon day after day and night after night. What more natural than for the hungry wolf to draw upon the ever-replenished reservoir discovered in the stock corral or the open range? The nature of the business upon which the predatory kind were engaged was no secret, of course, and gun, trap, and poison were resorted to by the early ranchers, each man for himself, with now and then a community hunt as the needs were more pressing. Learning that they had to contend with protectors of their new-found food supply, the prowlers became more and more wary in approach and kill, until what originated in a mere matter of satisfying a craving for food, has developed into a war to the death.

Uncle Sam, tired of the drain on his resources of $20,000,000 to $30,000,000 every year through the slaughter of domestic stock by predatory animals, now keeps constantly in the field a force of hunters who are instructed to wipe out these nonproducers. In their place, and safe from their depredations, it is the aim to populate the range country with flocks and herds, and in this way to lower the cost of production of live-stock and of meat that goes on the family table.

In some persons the picture of that motor car, full of dead wolves, and the picture elsewhere of the heaps of pelts of dead predatory animals, will arouse a twinge of pity and something very like indignation, that these creatures should be slain because they had eaten when they were hungry; and they will wonder what good Saint Francis of Assisi would have had to say about it. Another point of view, that of Mr. Bell, and his kind, he expresses as follows:

The average destruction of these animals is estimated to be for each wolf and mountain lion about $1000 worth of live stock annually; each coyote and bobcat $50 worth; and each stock-killing bear $500 worth. Statistics may leave the stockman unmoved and uninterested, but a vivid, lasting impression is made when he finds one of his valuable steers pulled down by a wolf, one of his colts struck down by a mountain lion, the scattered carcasses of several of his sheep killed by coyotes for a sheer lust of killing, or a valuable cow maimed or with skull crushed by a blow from the powerful paw of a grizzly.

If, indeed, the world is to be turned over to the human species, and a certain number of them choose to occupy our Western plains and mountains as herdsmen, like those of the pastoral age, it is small wonder that Uncle Sam should come to their rescue, provided there is no other side of the story of their present struggle against the predatory animals, whose natural home has been invaded. Says Mr. Bell:

The following typical cases are illustrative of the destructiveness of the predatory animals, and of the importance of operations for their control: In Colorado a single wolf took toll of nearly $3000 worth of cattle in one year. In Texas two wolves killed seventy-two sheep, valued at $9 each, during a period of two weeks. One wolf in New Mexico killed twenty-five head of cattle in two months; while another was reported by stockmen in the same State to have killed 150 cattle, valued at not less than $5000, during six months preceding his capture by a Survey hunter. In Wyoming two male wolves were killed, which during one month had destroyed 150 sheep and seven colts; another pair were reported to have killed about $4000 worth of stock during the year preceding their capture; while another, captured in June, had killed thirty head of cattle during the preceding spring. The county agricultural agent at Coalville, Utah, reported that wolves had taken 20 per cent, of the year’s calf crop in that section. A wolf taken in New Mexico was known to have killed during the preceding five months twenty yearling steers, nine calves, one cow, fifteen sheep, and a valuable sheep dog. In two weeks at Ozona, Tex., two wolves killed seventy-six sheep.

In Oregon four coyotes in two nights killed fifteen pure-bred rams, valued at $20 each. One flock in Morgan County, Utah, was attacked by three coyotes and $500 worth of sheep were killed in an hour. Near Antonito, Colo., sixty-seven ewes, valued at about $1,000, became separated from the rest of the herd; all were found killed by coyotes.

After a personal investigation in 1917, the president of the State Agricultural College of New Mexico reported that 34,350 cattle, 165,000 sheep and 850 horses are killed annually by predatory animals in that State, these losses amounting to $2,715,250. This involves the loss of 16,000,000 pounds of meat, and about 1,320,000 pounds of wool.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Maine Hunters Getting Short End Of Stick When It Comes To Hunting Opportunities

Hunters pay their share in fees and take to the woods. For most, their aim is to bag a deer (pun intended). Whether a hunter is searching for that “trophy” (it’s often all in one’s perspective) or simply “meat hunting”, all are seeking an “opportunity”. There are some species of game we hunt where opportunity is limited. In other words, game officials determine to what extent a certain species can yield in a harvest and still fall within the guidelines and goals of each species’ management plans. This limitation is most often seen in lottery type permits issuance. Maine as an example, has the moose hunt. Only a specified number of permits are issued and to have a chance at receiving a permit, a hunter must enter a lottery.

It is not often that we see this kind of restricted opportunity with deer hunting. In Maine’s case we are now seeing reductions in opportunity as the deer herd has pretty much disappeared in portions of the state. In Northern Maine, the shooting of female deer is now forbidden and there is talk of shortening the hunting season in those areas or perhaps even a complete closure. This of course means lost opportunities for hunters. When those opportunities are gone, so is revenue to the fish and game agencies that depend on that money to operate. This is why fish and game hates to restrict hunter opportunities and they should realize that when there is no game, interest drops as well.

So what is stealing your opportunities?

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear. There are many people out there today – environmentalists, animal rights groups and anti hunting organizations (some may be hiding at your local fish and game department) – that could care less about your hunting opportunities. Under the guise of “protecting” wildlife, their agendas all too often put into peril the very species they claim to be wanting to protect, which of course makes us question their motives.

Most state fish and game departments manage game animals for surplus populations because their mandate is to provide hunting opportunities. Some states aren’t too concerned about providing enough deer to hunt but instead are trying to come up with creative ways to reduce herds down to healthy levels. Maine is not such a state, at least not in Northern, Eastern and the Western Mountain regions.

I have repeated over and over that deer management is a very complicated issue, one that I don’t pretend to be an expert in and one that I wish those who claim to be experts at, would admit they don’t understand or have all the answers.

I would like to make an attempt at explaining my interpretation of hunting opportunities – what creates them and who or what steals them away.

Maine is a unique geographical region in that we often discuss Maine as being two states – the northern two-thirds and the lower one third. This follows the civilian population but also the same can be said about the weather. The Northern two-thirds of the state is much of the area where the deer herd is dwindling away to nothing, leading some biologist to believe it is unfeasible to try to manage a whitetail deer herd there. It is in this northern area that I would like to focus on for this article. I also want to attempt to keep this as simple as possible and yet acknowledge the unknown and complex factors not covered.

If the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is managing whitetail deer populations for surplus to provide hunting opportunities for Maine residents (which I believe they are), this means they have to manage or control as much as they can. In other words, they can’t control the weather but they can control how many and of what sex deer get taken in the annual harvest. When herds are struggling, as is the case in Northern Maine, efforts must increase to protect deer, perhaps in ways they have never had to in the past.

I was rereading and reviewing “White-Tailed Deer Population Management System And Database” by Gerald R. Lavigne. There is a section in there that deals some with deer mortality and how this is effected by severe winters.

We have all heard more than we want to about how it’s been the past couple of winters that has destroyed the deer herd. There’s no argument from me on that. What I will question is whether MDIFW really has a grip on the other factors that cause deer mortality.

Deer mortality is quite simple really. Just imagine all things that cause the death of a deer; natural, legal hunting, poaching, run over by car, becoming prey to such things as bear, coyote, bobcat, etc., disease, etc. etc. MDIFW has a system in place that accurately tracks the number of deer killed and tagged during the hunting season. Everything else is merely an educated guess based on many things of which I won’t try to explain because I don’t understand all of them.

On pages 31 and 34 of “White-Tailed Deer Management…….”, Lavigne provides some interesting pie graphs to help explain what might happen under certain conditions dealing with severe winters. First let me explain some of the terms Lavigne uses.

All-Cause Mortality – I think we have hit on that one pretty good above.
Fawn Recruitment Rate – How many deer born in the spring that survive heading into the fall hunt in November. This doesn’t tell us how many fawns were born only how many survived for that length of time. I believe in Maine this observation is undertaken in August. Fawn recruitment is generally recorded and utilized as a rate. That rate is determined by the number of fawns that survived per 100 adult does. If there are 75 fawns per 100 adult does, then the recruitment rate = 0.75. You may have also heard in your travels someone talking about what the fawn recruitment rate needs to be to sustain a deer herd or some other ungulate game animals, i.e. moose, elk, etc. This rate is highly variable depending on several conditions.
Winter Severity Index- MDIFW has devised a formula from data collected over many years, where they can attach an indexed number to how bad a winter was. They use this index to help determine winter mortality. This is factored into the All-Cause Mortality.

The All-Cause Mortality can and does vary much the same as the fawn recruitment rate depending upon certain conditions. Under perhaps “normal” conditions and depending on whether MDIFW is attempting to grow, reduce or maintain a deer population, an All-Cause Mortality might be 30%. This means that over the course of the year, hunting included, the total mortality of a deer herd can’t exceed 30%. If it does, it may mean the population is beginning to shrink.

If the pre-hunt deer population is 300,000 deer and we use Lavigne’s pie charts, we can make some determinations. If we determine that we can allow a 30% all mortality rate on the deer to sustain a population and we calculate in other factors like winter severity, fawn recruitment and others, then MDIFW can estimate that half of that 30% or 15% of the pre-hunt population can be taken by hunters, i.e. 45,000 deer. – your hunting opportunity. (This is all an estimate but I believe a reasonable one.)

Using the same charts, they tell us that this can be done because it is estimated that the winter will account for a reduction of 7% and 8% is attributed to “other”. More on “other” in a moment. This is all based on what MDIFW believes is a Fawn Recruitment Rate of 0.42 – 42 fawns per 100 adult does.

What happens when we begin to vary those percentages? Let’s say the following year the winter was very harsh and MDFW officials determined that it accounted for 15% of an All-Mortality reduction. If all other factors remain the same, then the deer harvest, your hunting opportunity, will have to be reduced by 8% of the total – an allowable harvest of 24,000 deer. Using this pie chart, etc., it becomes much easier to see how winter severity can cut into your hunting opportunity.

What happens if Fawn Recruitment drops significantly? More hunting opportunity is lost. A lower fawn recruitment means fewer deer replenishing the herd. If you are trying to sustain or grow a herd, a drop in fawn recruitment isn’t good. What effects fawn recruitment? Many things including weather – how late spring arrives, predation, habitat, etc.

Let’s now say that it has been determined that fawn recruitment has been dropping the past few years and is now down somewhere around 0.18, a level some say cannot sustain a population. Combine that with two severe winters, a bloated coyote population, a near record breaking population of black bear and basically what you end up with is no hunting opportunity. You may have opportunity but nothing to hunt, as has been the case in parts of Maine the past few years.

With all of these factors, it must be pointed out that the allowable All-Mortality also comes down. If something doesn’t change, not only is hunting opportunity eliminated, but a continued reduction in the deer population spirals downward until it can virtually disappear.

With that understood, then we hunters and MDIFW shouldn’t be discounting ANY factor that can change the makeup of Lavigne’s pie charts. I have read where Maine’s fawn recruitment is very low. Do we have a handle on why that is so? What can we do, other than change the weather, to improve that? Are biologists aware of the fact that the mere presence of predators can cause deer to abort or not conceive at all? Is there the available habitat for does to fawn in, protect and feed their young? We must look at all contributing factors.

The “All Other” part of that pie chart can make up as much as 8% or 10%, perhaps even more. We just don’t know because we don’t closely track this information. “All Other” comprises poaching. What can all of us do about poaching. I think we know the answer to that. There’s also automobile collisions. Can we take a look at where these occur most and make some changes? Are people feeding deer in their back yards causing the death of a few hundred deer because they get run over while crossing the road to get to the feed? Do we need better signage and education to get drivers to slow down and be aware when in deer crossing zones?

“All Other” includes predation. Why isn’t the MDIFW going to up the black bear kill to cut down on bear predation? The same can be asked of moose? Not from predation but from competition for food.

All of these little things contribute to the reduction of your hunting opportunities and none of them should be taken lightly. We have a situation where we question whether a herd can be rebuilt. Every little factor can help.

However, this is really dependent upon whether Maine hunters, MDIFW and the state as a whole, really think it is worth managing Northern Maine for deer. Some don’t think it is. Some believe to increase bear and moose hunting opportunities is the way to go. It’s your investment and your hunting opportunities. It’s up to you to do something about it.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

So Why Not “Predator Free Zones” In Maine?

Open for discussion! Please use the comment section at the bottom of the page.

I tossed out a suggestion a few days ago as one of several on ways to help protect and rebuild Maine’s depleted whitetail deer populations. That suggestion was to create predator free zones, mainly around deer wintering areas. My idea is a modification of predator zoning suggested by Dr. Valerius Geist.

I thought about this idea a bit more this weekend. It seems that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife wants to put the blame on the deer demise on two specific occurrences: harsh winters and loss of wintering habitat. While I know of nobody who disputes that assessment, I also know of few who think that’s the ONLY problem.

We can’t do much about the weather and trying to tell private landowners what they have to do with their land is a touchy subject. We know some winter deer yards have been destroyed but many still exist. George Smith, Executive Director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, says that some of the winter deer yards on the state’s public lands don’t have any deer in them. This tells us that the problems with the wintering yards isn’t that they have simply been cut down. Why are there no deer in these yards?

There is a situation in parts of the state where the deer are reported to have been depleted beyond sustainable levels. In these areas and others, the state is no longer looking at maintaining population numbers and certainly not reducing. The deer need to be replenished. At these levels saving one or two deer might make the difference.

Smith (SAM) has asked MDIFW if they will map out the deer wintering areas. If this can be done, then why can’t we use the same mapping and designate predator free zones around those wintering areas that are low on deer and high on predators? Of course this would take a strong commitment on the part of MDIFW to stand by such a decision as being one of necessity in order to save a species. They can’t start the project and then back down at the first threat of a lawsuit aimed at stopping predator control.

These predator free zones would receive immediate and priority attention and resources. The goal here wouldn’t be to kill off all predators but to keep them away from winter deer yards. Gerry Lavigne, retired deer biologist for MDIFW, believes that targeted predator control will work. He is not alone. Dr. Valerius Geist says that creating predator zones should be an integral part of wildlife management.

Reducing the number of predators around winter deer yards will save some deer and will help with fawn survival rates. If we are staring down the barrel of extirpation, I see saving one, two or six deer as well worth the effort. What do you think?

Do you think predator free zones can work? What are your ideas on how to implement a predator free zone? Please use the comment section of this article to express your thoughts and ideas.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Stepping Up To Help Maine’s Deer Herd Could Get Bogged Down In Politics

I recently posted the thoughts and ideas of George Smith, Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, in his quest to save and/or rebuild a large portion of Maine’s whitetail deer population that is dismal and described as some as beyond rebuilding.

While the debate on that subject is young and in need of “help” from “everyone”, I thought as one of every I would offer up my own thoughts in response to Smith’s.

There’s a big rub that exists when talking about the deer herd in Maine. That rub is the dissatisfaction of the Maine hunter who buys the license. Hunters want action not another effort of gathering together stakeholders to rehash what most already know. They don’t see any of the previous efforts put forth as amounting to anything. Why would it be different now?

Can we blame the disgruntled hunters for feeling this way? The deer are gone and what the hunters are getting is more blaming of bad winters and cut down forests. They are tired of hearing about these excuses and they want action. Calling together all the same components of what to hunters looks like failed policies and poor management, isn’t going over big at all. That’s a wall that needs dismantling.

Smith says early on in his piece that a process has to be followed or the consequences could be more harmful than helpful.

Effective action follows understanding follows fact finding.

I wonder if the “facts” will come mostly from the same source of “facts” that has gotten us to the point we are in now? The most important fact is that the deer herd in depleted in certain areas of the state. A fact is what has taken place, whether natural or man made hasn’t worked. A fact is maybe it’s time to find some “different” facts.

I’m not suggesting anyone is insane, but the definition of such is a repetition of the same action hoping for a different result. Sanity tells us if the repetition isn’t working, perhaps we need to change something. We cannot pretend to gain an understanding of facts we aren’t convinced accurately describe a situation.

If we are to effect the proper action to achieve an end result, there must be a united effort as Smith suggests. The only way that is going to happen is to convince the disgruntled hunters.

So where are the facts to effect this understanding and action going to come from? The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife? Try telling these angry hunters that MDIFW has the facts. Why should they be believed? Hunters have laid out a lot of money over the years and the results are not very good.

Are we going to believe “facts” from the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine? Some will. Many won’t. Sportsmen are not united on issues and while the SAM is the largest organization representing Maine sportsmen, it doesn’t represent a majority of hunters.

Will “facts” come from guides and outfitters? That’s tough as well. You see we find out that the Maine guides seemed to dictate to MDIFW that they didn’t want more bear harvested as a means of helping to reduce bear predation on deer. It was reported in a previous article on Smith’s blog that MDIFW was simply following the recommendations of the predator working group. It doesn’t sit well with deer hunters when they find a group getting their wishes taken care of at what appears to be the expense of the deer population.

The stakeholders in the issue are everybody who buys a hunting license to hunt deer. Let’s not kid ourselves. The groups are simply a means of gathering more power to promote group agendas, therefore having more influence on game management policies of the MDIFW. I suppose one can either work independently, join an existing group that seems to best represent their ideals or shut up and go away.

Everyone of the groups I’ve mentioned and not mentioned, including the individual deer hunter, plays an important and integral role in deer management in Maine. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the squeakiest wheel isn’t necessarily a good representation of the hunting population.

Smith’s contention that “Effective action follows understanding follows fact finding” is a good one but each element of that progression has to be done right. The task that lies ahead to gather facts that can be agreed upon by an overwhelming majority of hunters and not just by the “group in charge” is the axis that will make the wheel turn. Once that is achieved, gaining understanding and putting together actions shouldn’t be so difficult.

I believe Smith understands this.

We cannot sugar-coat this situation. Hunters deserve to know the truth. What is the situation? What can we expect in 2010 and the years beyond? What will work? What won’t work? Who is stepping up to help? Who is not? These truths must come from every organization, including landowner groups, SAM, and DIF&W. And we better be together on this. There is simply no room for argument, or a shading of the facts to suit someone’s agenda. SAM seeks a commitment from all major players to both fact finding and truth telling. I am promising you will get nothing but the unvarnished truth from SAM, even if some of it is hard to accept.

My fear is that the “facts” will be repeated from the same sources as before without support and explanation from someone hunters can trust. I don’t know who that is but it might be worthwhile to come up with one, two or three people who can hammer out the “facts” and pass them on to hunters in order to bring them on board.

Smith says, “And we better be together on this”. He’s right but how do we do that? If we can figure that out, the rest should be comparatively easy.

If you hunt and you care about the future of deer hunting in Maine, I would suggest getting involved. How you do that is up to you. I suggested before that perhaps you can find a sportsman’s organization that best fits your ideals. Bear in mind you won’t find a perfect one, just a good one.

You can also become an activists by yourself. Talk to your friends and neighbors about what’s going on with the deer. Help them understand why it is important to everyone that we have a healthy deer herd, a well-managed one that includes predator controls, etc. Do some research on your own seeking the truth about deer management, predator management and landowner rights. Talk to your local game warden. If you can develop a good report with them, they can educated you to a lot of what is going on in your area. Report a poacher.

Do your part as a hunter. If there are too many coyotes in your favorite hunting spot, take up hunting them or find someone who will. Invite a trapper or a coyote hunter to come on your land and do some of your own predator control.

This task will not be easy but sitting idly by complaining isn’t a viable option.

In the future I will examine more of Smith’s ideas as well as those of others and the progress that is being made. Look for updates and links.

More responses: Fact Finding

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Everyone Must Step Up To Help Maine’s Deer Herd

The other day I received an email from a reader and concerned deer hunter. I was told that it was alright to release the information in that email. Below is a draft of thoughts and ideas on how to move forward on restoring Maine’s depleted deer herd. It was authored by George Smith, Executive Director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine.

The draft it appears was emailed to the Board of Directors of SAM and Smith indicates that his board instructed him to prioritize the deer problem. I will copy the proposal below and save comment for a separate post. Once that post is completed, I’ll come back and provide a link to it from here.

Link to related story.

More responses: Fact Finding

~~~~~

SN Jan Deer Solution

Everyone Must Step Up to Help Deer

By George Smith

There is a job for every one of us in the campaign to bring back the deer herd in all regions of the state. SAM intends to lead the campaign. We cannot and will not give up on deer or deer hunters.

Since writing a series of articles on 2009’s dismal deer season, I have been gathering suggestions for all quarters including groups representing landowners, sportsmen, and guides, and from sporting camp owners, SAM members and other sportsmen, and wildlife biologists at the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.

Deer hunters are disappointed and angry. Some are very angry. It is imperative that we act quickly to direct that anger in a positive direction and present credible plans to rebuild the deer herd. Here are the ideas that I think merit consideration.

First, keep this process in mind: Effective action follows understanding follows fact finding. Get this out of order and you could do more harm than good.

Fact Finding

Job one is to fully understand the facts of this situation. Many are casting blame in all directions. It’s time to step back and gather all available facts. This need not take long. We look to landowner organizations like the Maine Forest Products Council and to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife for the information needed to properly assess the situation. I’ve already learned a lot in meeting with these interests over the past few weeks. We’re not looking to cast blame. But we must know as much as possible about the situation.

The information needed includes: 1) an evaluation of the system of voluntary deer wintering area management agreements between DIF&W and large landowners, and LURC zoned deer yards; 2) a report on the amount and quality of deer wintering habitat now available in the unorganized territories on private and public land; 3) an evaluation and explanation of the 2009 deer season including harvest and license sales; 4) an accurate estimate of the current deer population by WMD; 5) an explanation of the major challenges in restoring deer numbers to DIF&W’s population goals for each WMD.

The Truth

We cannot sugar-coat this situation. Hunters deserve to know the truth. What is the situation? What can we expect in 2010 and the years beyond? What will work? What won’t work? Who is stepping up to help? Who is not? These truths must come from every organization, including landowner groups, SAM, and DIF&W. And we better be together on this. There is simply no room for argument, or a shading of the facts to suit someone’s agenda. SAM seeks a commitment from all major players to both fact finding and truth telling. I am promising you will get nothing but the unvarnished truth from SAM, even if some of it is hard to accept.

Coyote Hunting Network

Every Maine hunter should make a commitment to try coyote hunting in 2010.

SAM has made a commitment to aggressively promote coyote hunting. We have already posted a how-to guide on our website and will print it in the January/February 2010 SAM News. It is written by former DIF&W deer biologist Gerry Lavigne, now a consultant to SAM on deer and coyote issues. We are also working with Gerry and URSUS Productions to produce a video with similar information.

Previously we published Gerry’s articles advocating for a Coyote Hunting Network. He has made a compelling case that hunters can reduce coyote populations to a level that will sharply curtail predation on deer.

We have also asked DIF&W to be a full partner with SAM in promoting coyote hunting, through its Information and Education Division. There are other ways DIF&W can help, including gathering bait (from road-kills and other sources) for recreational hunters to use to hunt coyotes.

We are working with the outdoor industry, specifically with guides and sporting camp owners, to promote coyote hunting as an add-on to all other hunts in Maine. Get a bear on your first day? Get back in that stand and shoot coyotes. Done your turkey hunt at noon? Stick around and call in a coyote.

Help the Outdoor Industry

DIF&W should convene a meeting of the key players in the outdoor industry, including the Maine Professional Guides Association, Sporting Camp Owners Association, and Maine Tourism Association, to create a list of actions that can be taken to help those who have been hurt by 2009’s disastrous deer season and by diminished prospects for deer hunting in the north woods for the foreseeable future. SAM will help.

If DIF&W is unwilling to do this, SAM should do it in partnership with the outdoor industry.

I have two suggestions: 1) vastly increase moose hunting opportunities; and 2) aggressively market fishing opportunities for both native brook trout and smallmouth bass.

SAM already took one action to help the industry, asking DIF&W Commissioner Dan Martin and his Advisory Council to reconsider its recent decision to hold a third week of moose hunting in northern Maine in October, and to schedule it in November to help make up for lost deer hunters. Commissioner Martin agreed to do that and the Council will meet on December 22 to act on this request.

Deer Wintering Areas

Fingers are pointing at landowners for cutting deeryards, but there are many deeryards with few or any deer in them. Clearly the problem is more complicated that this. Many elements are at play. Deer wintering areas are one of them. When DIF&W’s Wildlife Division Director Mark Stadler says we do not have sufficient deer wintering habitat, I believe him. SAM’s own deer consultant, Gerry Lavigne, says we need one million more acres of deer wintering habitat.

I also know that some landowners are doing a terrific job of managing deer wintering area, in cooperation with DIF&W and on their own. For example, DIF&W Regional Wildlife Biologist Rich Hoppe reports that he has a great relationship with Irving Woodlands and the company is doing a good job of managing deer wintering habitat. Irving Woodlands manager John Gilbert recently told me that more than nine percent of the company’s extensive land holdings are managed for deer wintering habitat, a very significant commitment from them.

DIF&W’s Director of Resource Management, Dr. Ken Elowe, says on Maine’s two million acres of conservation land, deer wintering habitat management is a top priority. But these areas don’t seem to have any more deer than other areas. We need to know why (see fact finding above).

The Maine Forest Products Council, Small Woodland Owners Association of Maine, and DIF&W have created new guidelines for managing deer wintering habitat, and both MFPC and SWOAM have promised to encourage their members to utilize the guidelines.

SAM is insisting that this new voluntary management system include real accountability. We appreciate the commitment of MFPC and SWOAM to encourage landowners to participate. And we’re especially grateful to those landowners who have already stepped up. We will tell you who those landowners are in the near future.

DIF&W must measure that level of participation and report to all of us on an annual basis. We want to know how much land is being managed for deer wintering area, where that land is, which landowners are participating in the voluntary program, and most importantly, which landowners are not. SAM will praise the participants and get after those who refuse to help.

DIF&W may also need to beef up the state’s deeryard zoning rules, so they can be effectively applied to landowners who refuse to participate in the voluntary program. This stick need never be used. But if it is needed, it ought to be available. The current zoning rules are unworkable, ineffective, and rarely used.

Multi-species Management

Other species are negatively impacting deer. Moose have over browsed the food supply. Bears are eating a lot of fawns in the spring. Coyotes are slaughtering deer in the winter. Even the resurgence of bobcats is hurting deer. And some sportsmen think turkeys are also having an impact.

All of this is simply what I have heard or think. We must know the truth. And most importantly, we have to get together, as a sporting and landowning community, and decide how we want all of these interactions to be handled.

The Maine Forest Products Council and SAM have asked DIF&W to convene a new multi-species working group to sort through the facts and issues and prepare a plan that resolves the conflicts and specifies our preferences and expectations including favored species and habitats.

We will learn a lot from this process. For example, it will shock some folks to learn that some species would benefit from more clear cutting. Maine’s Forest Practices Act limits clear cutting to small areas and has resulted in harvests spread over a greater amount of the landscape, not a good thing for some critters.

DIF&W’s Mark Stadler responded to the request from MFPC and SAM with a commitment to host a meeting in early 2010 to present DIF&W’s process and work plan for conducting the multi-species planning work. Included in the discussion will be the make-up of the working group, its role, and a meeting schedule. This is a very positive and critically important effort.

Deer Harvests

All aspects of the deer harvest must be re-examined. This would include the locations of expanded archery hunts and the bag limits for those hunts, and the number of any deer permits issued in each district. Deer hunting seasons should not be curtailed or closed. There is no need to do this, and it would be harmful to the sport, to the economy, and to the department. The any-deer permit system works, and can be ratcheted back as necessary (2/3 of the state already gets no permits).

Best Management

The state should create a policy that makes deer wintering area management and predation control the top priorities for all public lands, state parks, and easement lands. We should work with private and nonprofit landowners to encourage them to do the same. SAM will ask the legislature to establish this priority in law.

DIF&W should also work with SWOAM to publish and provide information on roadside plantings, food plots, and other ways landowners can help sustain deer.

Landowner Relations

Deer are more plentiful in suburban areas. DIF&W, and every individual sportsman, should make landowner relations a top priority, working to maximize the amount of huntable land in suburban areas. Suburban hunting does involve different techniques than deep woods hunting, and we should all work to educate ourselves about these new techniques, and look for areas where they can be employed.

I have found that much posted land can be hunted, if the hunter gains the respect and confidence of the landowner.

It would help if the state required a phone number on all posting signs, especially those that the state gives out free of charge that say “Access by Permission Only.” SAM will work with SWOAM to see if we can get agreement on this.

SAM intends to sponsor and organize a conference for sportsmen and landowners in the spring, to explore deer management issues and other similar topics. We will also devote a significant portion of our 15th Annual Sportsman’s Congress to deer issues.

DIF&W Staff

The department must reallocate staff time and resources to the management of deer and deer wintering habitat, and the other programs specified in this plan. No other hunting constituency comes close to the numbers of deer hunters, and the challenge of rebuilding the deer herd must not fall short of receiving the resources necessary to get the job done.

Other Ideas

The following suggestions intrigue me. I offer them here merely for the purposes of discussion. Some may have merit. Others may not.

Deer Feeding: DIF&W appears willing to rethink its strong message against deer feeding, at least to the extent that it would offer information about the most effective ways to feed deer, and the specific areas (including deeryards) where such feeding would be most helpful. This would be a major departure and another indication of the department’s willingness to think outside the box.

Deeryard Protection: DIF&W could revive its program to hire ADC agents to protect deer in specific yards, mostly with coyote traps, perhaps combining this with a targeted deer feeding program in those same yards. DIF&W might also designate important yards that hunters could protect, perhaps with help from wardens in locating coyote bait.

Money: hunters might be asked, through higher license fees or other mechanisms, to fund initiatives to pay for management of deer wintering areas, deer feeding, and predation control programs.

Coyote Night Hunting: the season could be expanded and the permit fee suspended to encourage more hunters to try it.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Trapped On Ice, Coyotes Have Advantage

This is not necessarily the taking of the weak and sickly of the Maine deer herd by coyotes.

Reader Al forwarded these photos he received from a friend and fellow hunter. The photos were accompanied by a short caption.

“Tom, This email Is from Paul ***** one of the top cat hunters in the state. Looks like the buck lost out when he hit the slippery ice. Quite common for coyotes to get the upper hand when this happens.”

“Al, I forgot to send these to you the other day. I found this while chasing a cat. I was near the same stream a week before and it was open. Once froze the coyotes ran this big buck out there and ate him alive, but (fish and game) says they just get the sick and little ones! Paul”

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

A Warning To Outdoor Users About Echinococcus, From Worms

This is a warning to outdoor users about a potentially deadly biological event that could result from one’s curiosity to poke at and kick through scat from wolves, coyotes and foxes. Of course not everyone knowingly does this but many hunters, trappers and simply the curious, want to know what these animals have been eating.

Back in the end of November I gave you a link to a story, “Of Wolves and Worms”. That story introduced many of us to the subject of worms being found in wolves in the Greater Yellowstone area.

According to a new study out in the October issue of the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, three-millimeter-long tapeworms known as Echinococcus granulosus, are documented for the first time in gray wolves in Idaho and Montana. And the authors didn’t just find a few tapeworms here and there… turns out that of 123 wolf intestines sampled, 62 percent of the Idaho gray wolves and 63 percent of the Montana gray wolves were positive. (Ew!) The researchers wrote: “The detection of thousands of tapeworms per wolf was a common finding.” (Again… Ew!!) This leads to the interpretation that the E. granulosus parasite rate is fairly widespread and established in the Northern Rocky Mountain wolves.

There is discussion about how some think the worms ended up in the wolves in this region but the article tends to downplay any serious concerns people should have from coming in contact with these tapeworms and the eggs they leave behind.

In the comments section of the article, Will Graves, author of the book “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, left his thoughts on his own research discoveries about the dangers to humans of these parasites.

In the first paragraph in my letter to Mr. Bangs dated 3 October 1993 on the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) which was titled “The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho,” I warned about the damages and problems wolves would cause to Yellowstone and other areas by carrying and spreading parasites and diseases over larger areas. Some of these parasites are damaging not only to wild and domestic animals, but can also be dangerous to humans. One of these parasites is Echinococcous Granulosus and Echinococcus M. Since 1993 I have been working to tell people what I have learned from about 50 years of research on the characteristics, habits and behavior of Russian wolves. From that research I came to the conclusion that one of the most serious consequences of bring wolves into the US would be the wolves carrying and spreading around damaging/dangerous parasites and diseases. I did my best to explain this in my book titled, “Wolves in Russia – Anxiety Through the Ages” edited by Dr. Valerius Geist. Details about my book are in my web site: wolvesinrussia.com.

After several years effort, I finally recently obtained help from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Parasitic Research Center in Beltsville, MD. This research center will try to conduct research on the blood taken from wolves in our western states. One parasite they will be researching is to determine if wolves carry and spread the parasite Neospora Caninum around. It is established that coyotes and dogs carry this damaging parasite.

I remember that about two years ago there was a report about one wolf carrying Echinococcus Granulosus in Montana.

Much more research is needed about the danger wolves bring to our environment. Some of the parasites carried by wolves are dangerous to humans.(emphasis added)

Around this same time that Will Graves posted his comments, he contacted me by email and asked if I could somehow be of assistance to him in obtaining blood samples from wolves taken during the Idaho and Montana wolf hunts. The word went out quickly and hopefully Graves gets what he needs to help him in his research. This can become extremely valuable information for all of us.

In the meantime, Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus University of Calgary and Dr. Charles Kay, of Utah State University, who holds degrees in wildlife ecology, environmental studies and wildlife biology, exchanged thoughts on the discovery of worms in Yellowstone wolves in emails I received.

Well, Charles? What else is new? What did we warn about, how we were censored as alarmists………………………
And yes, a colleague assured us that all that is not a problem for us, but for some native types. Nothing to worry about, really. Remember how, early on, we put out a warning – do not kick dry wolf feces or poke about in such looking for evidence of food habits. Do not handle wolf feces as it will disturb the tiny Echinococcus eggs that float up like little dust cloud to envelop you, and you are very likely to ingest some of that “dust”. This know-how, which we older Canadian types carried away from our parasitogy lessons was poo-hood by some American colleagues. Wolves are after all, harmless! Remember the question we posed: is it really such a great idea completing ecosystems when the progression is herbivores, carnivores, finally diseases and parasites?

It is not my intention nor that of Drs. Geist and Kay to attempt to instill unnecessary fear in people but to educate, as it was back in the day before wolf reintroduction. There are very important lessons and warnings that all should heed and take into consideration when in the woods or maybe even in your own back yard.

Dr. Geist emailed me the other day and asked me if I would be kind enough to post this information so that anyone and everyone will be aware of the potential for some very serious health issues.

Urgent: could you make a point of it that now, that we know that the majority of wolves are infected with Echinococcus, that all hunters control their curiosity and not poke about in wolf or coyote feces to find out what these predators ate. these feces are saturated with tiny, lightweight Echinococcus eggs that rise like dust plume from the disturbed feces and envelop the poking hunter. If the air-born eggs are ingested, the an infection is possible, and having Echinococcus cysts grow inside oneself is not a desirable condition. Trust me!

He followed that up with more information about the dangers.

As to the pathogenicity of Echinococcus granulosus: Yes, I noticed that Foayt, leaning on Raup’s research in Alaska, toned down the dangers from this northern form. My understanding based on what we learned from an old, experienced parasitologist at the University of British Columbia is that it’s nothing to fool around with. It’s serious! In my career as a biologist in touch with the north, I have heard nothing else. I have not, however, done a recent literature search. Foayte’s assessment may be on even though it conflicts with mine. Either way, 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.

There is however, another much more alarming angle. Echinococcus multilocularis is a nightmare, and 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. Were some of the wolves infected with multilocularis? Coyotes and foxes carry it and it has been spreading. Do canids in Idaho, Montana, etc. have it? It’s found in Alberta. Regardless, now is the time to send out an SOS to ALL outdoor users. Hold your curiosity in check, do not poke into the feces of wolves, coyotes and foxes. If you do you will release clouds of Echinococcus eggs which will envelop you, and you may ingest the eggs, bring the eggs home and endanger your family. This is nothing new to me and I have lived with this constraint on my curiosity for over 40 years. This is just a know how that maintains your personal and your family’s safety. Also, never feed uncooked offal to your dog as it may become infected with Echinococcus and infect you and your family. Echinococcus cysts love to be in lung and liver, and if consumed by dogs you have a health hazard on your hands. And such cysts now grow in deer and elk where you live. Somebody should take a second look searching out Echinococcus multilocularis.

You and I probably have no idea in the world whether these worms exist in the woods we hunt, trap, hike, etc. but good advice given by Dr. Geist should tell us it’s not something we should mess around with. Squelch the curiosity to dig in the poop and just assume there could be hidden danger.

I want to take a moment to thank Will Graves, Dr. Val Geist and Dr. Charles Kay for caring enough about the rest of us to be willing to share their findings and experiences.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Of Wolves And Worms

If a Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf has a daily to-do list, it may look like this:1.) Avoid hunters, 2.) Maintain territory, 3.) Find prey, 4.) Get de-wormed.

Yes, de-wormed.

<<<Read More>>> and make sure to read the comments.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Maine Black Bear Tooth Harvest Data Available

When bear hunters register their bears in Maine, they are asked to volunteer a tooth from their catch. These teeth are collected by biologists at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. They can easily determine the age of the bear and other data that helps them in making decisions on bear management.

The age data collected from the 2008 bear hunt is now available for those interested. If you volunteered a tooth from your bear, you can now find out how old it was.

To view this data, visit the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife website. From this landing page scroll down and you’ll find a link “age of the bear they harvested“. It’s an Excel Spreadsheet.

The oldest bear taken was a female that was 28-years old. The oldest male bear harvested was 20.

MDIFW collected 1,037 volunteer teeth or about 38% of the total harvest.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Next Page »