Take this serious!

[bearpaw]

wacoyote thanks for attaching the document from Idaho Fish & Game. Unfortunately it reads nearly like part of a disclaimer, sounded to me like they were downplaying the significance of this parasite more or less like the Defenders of Wildlife downplay wolf predation on livestock (which has already proven to be significant in the mountain states and will be significant in WA when we have 15 breeding pairs). I am sure they hope to avoid any lawsuits. 

This also brings up another comment someone made. Someone said something about how the public has been involved in the WA Wolf Plan. 

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.....

WDFW offered 4 options which all included 15 breeding pairs. The public never had a chance to decide how many breeding pairs should be in WA. The wolf working group was stacked heavy with pro-wolfers. The minority position which recommended fewer wolves in WA was never offered as an option. How the heck is that considered public involvement in the process. The real truth is public manipulation by the process.

Some of the folks in WDFW need to go the way of the Ted Kennedy senate seat. The dems found out it is the "people's senate seat".

[Wacenturion]

The trouble with research is that unless the person doing it is 100% completely unbiased, it is somewhat of a reflection of that researchers views.  Therefore is a person say doing a particular research on ecosystem health, whatever is say someone who thinks wolves are a necessary part of the whole, then you have a problem.  Conversely if he hates wolves you also have the same problem.  It a rare person who doesn't intertwine his or her views into the end product.

Point being....be somewhat skeptical of any research until you yourself research the person responsible for it.  Enough said. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

http://www.avma.org/public_health/zoonotic_risks/hunters_precautions.asp

I agree Bearpaw- you're in a higher category of risk due to repeated possible exposure.  Those of us that work and play in the field are at a higher risk for exposure to lots of things...avian flu, lyme disease, west nile, rabies...

To blame tapeworms squarely on wolves is foolishness.   Being aware that wildlife can carry disease is just common sense.  

[Wacenturion]

wacoyote thanks for attaching the document from Idaho Fish & Game. Unfortunately it reads nearly like part of a disclaimer, sounded to me like they were downplaying the significance of this parasite more or less like the Defenders of Wildlife downplay wolf predation on livestock (which has already proven to be significant in the mountain states and will be significant in WA when we have 15 breeding pairs). I am sure they hope to avoid any lawsuits. 

This also brings up another comment someone made. Someone said something about how the public has been involved in the WA Wolf Plan. 

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.....

WDFW offered 4 options which all included 15 breeding pairs. The public never had a chance to decide how many breeding pairs should be in WA. The wolf working group was stacked heavy with pro-wolfers. The minority position which recommended fewer wolves in WA was never offered as an option. How the heck is that considered public involvement in the process. The real truth is public manipulation by the process.

Some of the folks in WDFW need to go the way of the Ted Kennedy senate seat. The dems found out it is the "people's senate seat".

That's the way WDFW uses all surveys and so called public input....as I said in another thread....it's their culture.

[Lowedog]

Bearpaw, no offense meant here but can you show where it is documented that there was little or no known existence of this parasite before Canadian wolves were introduced?  The reason I ask is that I found many studies on this parasite dating back for decades just from a simple google search.   It has been studied far and wide and not just in wolves.  

I also find it hard to believe that there was any conspiracy to hide the fact that wolves are a well known carrier of this parasite.  Were there not people who were experts on wolves that were against reintroduction from the beginning that would have known this fact?  

I understand your concerns on the wolf issue but would just like to say to you like you said to luvtohunt, maybe it is also good to remember that from where you are gaining your information there might also be an agenda.  

I would also like to add that I don't know if we want the general public of WA state deciding how many wolves we should have.  Remember that us hunters are a very small minority in this state and we might not like what the general public thinks as to how many wolves we should have. 

[bearpaw]

author=WAcoyotehunter link=topic=42555.msg525302#msg525302 date=1264455549]
http://www.avma.org/public_health/zoonotic_risks/hunters_precautions.asp

I agree Bearpaw- you're in a higher category of risk due to repeated possible exposure.  Those of us that work and play in the field are at a higher risk for exposure to lots of things...avian flu, lyme disease, west nile, rabies...

To blame tapeworms squarely on wolves is foolishness.   Being aware that wildlife can carry disease is just common sense.  

From what I have read these particular (and more dangerous) tapeworms were for the most part non-existent in the rocky mountain west. They are far more common in the far north. I am squarely blaming anyone who knew wolves being imported from the far north may have been infected with these parasites. If you have read my posts you will know that I have stated several times that I believe there is room for a properly managed population of wolves in the northwest. However I do not believe there is room for the hundreds of wolves that 15 breeding pairs will represent. I also do not believe there is room for transplanted wolves that introduce a new and dangerous parasite.

I will be honest, I try to wear gloves when taking care of downed game but do not always remember to take them with me.

That's the way WDFW uses all surveys and so called public input....as I said in another thread....it's their culture.

Point being....be somewhat skeptical of any research until you yourself research the person responsible for it.  Enough said.

wacenturian I agree whole heartedly with your last two posts, very well put.

can you show where it is documented that there was little or no known existence of this parasite before Canadian wolves were introduced?

no offense taken lowedog

I know some of you guys do not like wolfbait, but he has researched and introduced far more info about wolves to this site than anyone else I know of and the info he has provided from wolf experts says exactly that. If you read the info you would have already known that.

I also find it hard to believe that there was any conspiracy to hide the fact that wolves are a well known carrier of this parasite. Were there not people who were experts on wolves that were against reintroduction from the beginning that would have known this fact?

Conspiracy wasn't my choice of words, but your choice to use it may be more accurate than my wording. Again, if you read the info provided by wolfbait, a letter had been sent to Ed Bangs (USFWS Wolf Recovery Team) from a leading wolf expert detailing the dangers of the parasite in wolves.

I would also like to add that I don't know if we want the general public of WA state deciding how many wolves we should have.  Remember that us hunters are a very small minority in this state and we might not like what the general public thinks as to how many wolves we should have.

The WDFW process provides for public input from anyone wishing to comment. That is truly the way it should be. The WDFW Dept claims that they use that testimony (input) to help develop their recommendations to the WDFW Commission. The commission uses the WDFW Dept recommendations and public input to makes the decisions. This is the way I understand the process, please tell me if I am incorrect in any way. I have been busy hunting, so I do not know if the WDFW Commission has made the decisions on the Wolf Plan yet.

[luvtohnt]

I am not trying to offend you luvtohunt, but has it occurred to you that you are being taught what they want to teach you.

I am very glad that you are a hunter and that you are going to be a biologist, I hope more hunters get into the field as it is in dire need of actual hunters. But please remember, most of those doing the teaching have their own agendas, and it is not usually a pro-hunting agenda. They are certainly going to downplay anything that would make wolves look bad.

I am in no way offended, I believe that this may be true at large universities, but here in Ellensburg so far the majority of my professors have been hunters and fisherman themselves. We don't discuss current topics in most class because they are teaching principles of biology. I think grad school, where a person starts to specialize in one area, may have a larger problem with this. I have had one teacher in general ecology that spent  a whole 30 minutes all quarter talking about her views on global warming. While I disagree with her thoughts I still listened to see if I could learn something, and I actually did. I actually tried to have a discussion with her in her office about wolves and she was unaware that we even had them in Washington. She spends most of her time in South America researching frogs!!

So at this point it appears that the main concern for me and my dog out hunting is 1 the dog gets attacked by wolves and two that my dog gets the eggs on his coat and I get the eggs on me from petting the dog.

Sounds like a bath for the dog each time I am out in possible areas of contamination is in order.  Probably also a good idea to keep the boots out in the garage and give them a good Lysol spray down if in wolf country.  Don't want to bring those nasty eggs in the house.  I'm not what I would call a germaphobe, but I do the same process with my work boots.  You should see some of the places I walk through.

Shootmoore

Being attacked by wolves will not spread the eggs, you will likely loose a dog which would be worse any way. As far as petting the dog, wash your hands when you are done and no worries. Brushing the dog would probably be a better choice then washing, less time consuming as well. The Lysol on the boots will more than likely not even begin to touch a parasite in it's egg they are designed to with stand some of the most extreme conditions. Just hit them together would Be enough to dislodge any eggs.

The trouble with research is that unless the person doing it is 100% completely unbiased, it is somewhat of a reflection of that researchers views.  Therefore is a person say doing a particular research on ecosystem health, whatever is say someone who thinks wolves are a necessary part of the whole, then you have a problem.  Conversely if he hates wolves you also have the same problem.  It a rare person who doesn't intertwine his or her views into the end product.
Point being....be somewhat skeptical of any research until you yourself research the person responsible for it.  Enough said. 

That is why I almost always read papers from both sides. If you read two papers that are totally polar opposites, you can probably be assured the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In this case I read a research paper from a Harvard MD that was researching it. No connection to wolves at all he referenced mostly the spread of the condition in Germany from foxes.

The WDFW process provides for public input from anyone wishing to comment. That is truly the way it should be. The WDFW Dept claims that they use that testimony (input) to help develop their recommendations to the WDFW Commission. The commission uses the WDFW Dept recommendations and public input to makes the decisions. This is the way I understand the process, please tell me if I am incorrect in any way. I have been busy hunting, so I do not know if the WDFW Commission has made the decisions on the Wolf Plan yet.

You are correct on the process used. They rely on the WDFW to provide the science, and for a workable plan. If the public input is vastly in disapproval the commission may send it back and tell the working group to to revise it to match what the public wants. So in the end we the people of the state have the ultimate say. They don't really consider public comment from the wolf meetings that were held other than to make sure they have all their bases covered in the EIS. It also allows the public to feel like they helped in making a decision. The only problem I could  forsee is he fact that the commission positions are appointed by none other than the grinch!! Also as far as I know the commission has not made a decision yet.

From what I have read these particular (and more dangerous) tapeworms were for the most part nonexistent in the rocky mountain west. They are far more common in the far north. I am squarely blaming anyone who knew wolves being imported from the far north may have been infected with these parasites.

I read one study that showed the disease had been found in Northern Idaho, Montana, and a section of North Dakota in the 40's I believe. I will see if I can find it again and send it to you. It could also be that with the lack of transportation prior to the eradication of wolves and the long period of time without wolves led science away from this particular parasite?

Brandon

[wolfbait]

An Interview with Will Graves, the Author of “WOLVES IN RUSSIA: Anxiety Through the Ages”*.
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.
Jim Beers
24 January 2010
* 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 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.  Contact:
jimbeers7@comcast.net

[Shootmoore]

Thanks Wolfbait, another good bit of info.

Shootmoore

[bearpaw]

Thanks Wolfbait, another good bit of info.

Shootmoore

+2, thanks for the informative post

If my memory serves me right, Jim Beers was a whistle blower who exposed coverups within the USFWS. He was basically forced into retirement after exposing those coverups. It seems like it was misappropriation of funds from the Pittman/Robertson act. Maybe someone else can remember more specifics.

[bearpaw]

From what I have read these particular (and more dangerous) tapeworms were for the most part nonexistent in the rocky mountain west. They are far more common in the far north. I am squarely blaming anyone who knew wolves being imported from the far north may have been infected with these parasites.

I read one study that showed the disease had been found in Northern Idaho, Montana, and a section of North Dakota in the 40's I believe. I will see if I can find it again and send it to you. It could also be that with the lack of transportation prior to the eradication of wolves and the long period of time without wolves led science away from this particular parasite?

Brandon

I would say that qualifies as "for the most part nonexistent". That was over a half century ago...  

I will add that I have read about other incidents in the west more recently, however this parasite was much more common in the far northern part of North America, now it seems that the incidence in the west has increased at the same time canadian wolves were introduced and have multiplied. Since we know canadian wolves have been proven to be a host, it seems reasonable to assume and probable that the 60% infection rate in Idaho's imported wolf population is due to the introduction of those very same canadian wolves rather than infection from the native predators of the west which have been here for centuries. It was not until candian wolves were introduced that these parasites have become common in the west.

[ICEMAN]

Wow you guys, great discussion and good job keeping things civil. I enjoy the logical discussion here. Good info for us "less informed" on this issue.

[WAcoyotehunter]

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.

Good answer to a loaded question. 

[Sporting_Man]

What an excellent article, and great guy - Jim Beers... In this article, I see no agenda, and no hidden agenda either. It is just stated and supported with facts that early management of wolves is imminent, so is just talking common sense. He has never mentioned eradication of wolves, just a strict control.  
I will repeat what I posted earlier, there are precious experiences from other countries and fresh(er) data than we have, I would think. That is why scientists network across political borders. Ignoring that data and downplaying facts is not helping - it is idiotic. Unfortunately, that is the approach that decision makers took.
I saw Echinoccocous cysts on beef (slaughtered cow) once, so when I want to puke - I just think about that picture. They were in her cheeks, liver and lungs. We disposed of all meat, had to wash and disinfect all the equipment, etc.  This thing is real, people.
I see problem of split opinion (and interests) between urban and rural folk on this very topic, even among hunters on this site.   OF COURSE THAT PEOPLE WHO LIVE OUT THERE AND RAISE CATTLE, OR GUIDE HUNTERS FOR LIVING WILL BE CONCERNED MORE AND SCREAM BLOODY MURDER!!! Why are you picking on them?   It is their butts at stake (in their everyday lives), not ours!
We citifolks are less likely to get exposed and therefore will "not panic and not fall for scare tactics".
Wolfbait, kudos to you for exposing this stuff and documenting it. I do not know if we would share the same political views in general, but I respect your work in this thread.

[luvtohnt]

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. 

I see no mention of this earlier. Are you not posting the whole interview? Or maybe this was manufactured?

I would say that qualifies as "for the most part nonexistent". That was over a half century ago... 

Why would that be nonexistent, it shows the disease can be present without wolves. Weren't all the wolves gone in the 30's? That makes it very relevent to this discussion

I will add that I have read about other incidents in the west more recently, however this parasite was much more common in the far northern part of North America, now it seems that the incidence in the west has increased at the same time Canadian wolves were introduced and have multiplied. Since we know Canadian wolves have been proven to be a host, it seems reasonable to assume and probable that the 60% infection rate in Idaho's imported wolf population is due to the introduction of those very same Canadian wolves rather than infection from the native predators of the west which have been here for centuries. It was not until Canadian wolves were introduced that these parasites have become common in the west.

That right there is the basis for poor science. You should never assume unless you have info to back it up. Do you have sources showing the disease flared up when the wolves were introduced?

What an excellent article, and great guy - Jim Beers... In this article, I see no agenda, and no hidden agenda either. It is just stated and supported with facts that early management of wolves is imminent, so is just talking common sense. He has never mentioned eradication of wolves, just a strict control.

I very much agree
 

I see problem of split opinion (and interests) between urban and rural folk on this very topic, even among hunters on this site. OF COURSE THAT PEOPLE WHO LIVE OUT THERE AND RAISE CATTLE, OR GUIDE HUNTERS FOR LIVING WILL BE CONCERNED MORE AND SCREAM BLOODY MURDER!!! Why are you picking on them?  It is their butts at stake (in their everyday lives), not ours!
We citifolks are less likely to get exposed and therefore will "not panic and not fall for scare tactics".
Wolfbait, kudos to you for exposing this stuff and documenting it. I do not know if we would share the same political views in general, but I respect your work in this thread.

I work on a cattle farm as well, it helps me make it through college. I also live in a rural community, just no wolves yet. I have heard rumors of one within 15 miles of here. But have yet to see the evidence. I am not saying it is something to sweep under the rug. I was simply trying to point out that the info that wolfbait provides (which I am glad, because it educates us all) is sometimes kinda far on the anti-wolf movement side. The only thing I try to accomplish is to provide as unbiased material as possible so people can read all the facts, not just the scary ones.

Brandon