Take this serious!

[Sporting_Man]

Brandon,

Hydatid disease is very scary crap. I saw it firsthand and happened to know a couple of people who became ill... I wouldn't want to see what it can do to people here, with regards to habits, pet ownership, etc.
I mean, wolves will backlash sooner or later everywhere, and we should be radical in our legitimate actions (word of mouth, correspondence, political activism, arm twisting, undertaking legal process, etc.), all against their idiotic protection. Their reproduction rates can be amazing and their radius of motion can be amazing... therefore spreading the ugly parasite is highly possible. When dealing with ugly truths, middle position doesn't help. There is too much at stake and too much was already taken. Don't expect the very people who conceived this propagation of varmints to admit their mistakes on their own. Therefore, we have to push hard... 
Comparing those findings from 60 years ago with the new situation doesn't make any sense to me. That was the post-wolf era in the West, so about 5 years from their removal was not enough time to expect that parasites would disappear... Who knows what factors were in play then. Thorough study is yet to be conducted.

[Shootmoore]

"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"

Best I can find is the last wolf in Eastern Montana was killed in Montana in 1927.  Best I can find the tapeworm problem died out in the area in the 1940's (as best as we know).  I don't have the answer but I would wonder how long it would take for something like this to die out when the main carrier was removed, but secondary carriers such as yotes still existed.  It would appear to me that the coyote is not as good of a carrier and spreader of the disease as the wolf? 

How wide spread it was prior to the eradication of the wolf from the lower 48 we will never know.  The MRI which is the best current way to detect the disease in humans was not invented till 1972 ish.  What I do see is that a lot of the data of "its been around a long time"  comes from area's where the wolf has not been removed such as Canada, Alaska, Siberian Russia etc.  Now we will once again have it in the lower 48.

From reading both arguments, it appears that the governmental data says that it usually is prevalent in indigenous peoples with a lot of dog contact.  In what I got the feeling to mean that us educated, technologically advanced people don't have to worry about it because we don't live like that.  I beg to differ, how many households have indoor dogs, house pets, that are probably taken care of better than they take care of themselves.  Dogs that play with the kids, come in and out, do double duty as working dog and household pet and play buddy for the kids.  I would argue that #2 after Guides and hunters the most likely candidate for a human infection of this would be young children.

I guess at this point we shall wait and see.  If I am right in my guess, I will feel sick to my stomach if I get to say I told you so. 

To clarify yes I want no wolves in the lower 48.  I am jaded in my desire for that goal.  I don't think that will happen, and would feel alot better if we could meet somewhere in the middle instead of all or nothing.  At this rate we are going for the all.

Shootmoore

[Lowedog]

Here is the report of a study done in California in 1970 regarding coyotes and Hydatid Disease.  I will just post the link.  If you are truly interested you can click to read.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=vpcfour

Here is a link to an Echinococosis fact sheet from Utah's office of epidemiology from 1998.
http://health.utah.gov/epi/fact_sheets/echino.html

Another from CA in 1974
http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/reprint/10/3/225.pdf

Even our anti hunting friends Project Coyote Have a report on their site that they submitted to the Indiana Natural Recourses Commission where they use Echinococcus multilocularis as a reason to not allow transporting and marketing of wild foxes and coyotes because of the spread of the parasite.
http://www.projectcoyote.org/action/IN_coyote_fox_penning_sign_on_letter_PC_AWI.pdf

Another report I found from 2003.
http://www.cableareavetclinic.com/ech.htm


I will post a small piece of info in this report in case you don't want to go read all of it.

Range of E. multilocularis in Central North America E. multilocularis has traditionally been considered a parasite of the northern tundra, and indeed the majority of human cases reported from the United States are from Alaska. However, since the 1960s, the cestode has been recognized with increasing frequency in a large endemic focus in central North America, encompassing all or part of 13 north central and midwestern states in the United States and three Canadian provinces (Figure 9). In the contiguous United States, E. multilocularis was first identified in the early 1960s in red foxes in North Dakota. It was subsequently identified, in 1965 to 1969, in wild canids or rodents in South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, and Montana. By 1982 to 1983, the parasite had been found in Wyoming, Nebraska, northern Illinois, and Wisconsin, and in 1990 to 1991 it was identified in Indiana and Ohio. The parasite is also known to occur in wild canids in southern Michigan (Storandt et al, unpublished) and northeastern Missouri (Bates et al, unpublished). Presently, the southernmost front of the parasite's range extends along the southern border of Wyoming, eastward through central Nebraska, northeastern Missouri, central Illinois and Indiana, and into north central Ohio (Figure 9). Prevalence of infection ranges from a low of 4.8% in red foxes in western Nebraska to a high of 88.9% in red foxes in eastern South Dakota. In northeastern Nebraska, 44.6% of red foxes were infected; in Illinois, 35.3% of coyotes were positive; and in Indiana, 22.5% of red foxes and 18.6% of coyotes were infected. In the latter study, mean intensity of infection for red foxes was 372 worms (range 2 to 3,640) versus 6,579 worms for coyotes (range 1 to 52,000).


Here is a mention on Hydatid Disease in the 1999 Feasibility Study on the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to
the Olympic Peninsula.  It is a word document and can be downloaded.
library.fws.gov/pubs9/graywolf_olympic.doc







Hydatid tapeworms (Echinococchus granulosus) have been a special disease concern for human safety (Mech 1970:306).  Moose were the most important host for E. granulosus larvae in North America, and infection of the adult parasite in wolves seemed more common where moose were primary prey (Freeman et al. 1961:532, McNeill et al. 1984:1659).  Infections have been noted to a lesser degree in elk (Green 1949:204-205, Holmes and Podesta 1968:1195), mountain goats (Rausch and Williamson 1959:399), white-tailed deer (Riley 1939:170), and black-tailed deer (Rausch and Williamson 1959:399, Cowan 1948:105).  In North America, hydatid tapeworms have been found in wolves in Alaska (Rausch and Williamson 1959:398), Minnesota (Riley 1939:171-172, Erickson 1944:361, Byman et al. 1977:378), and Canada (Cowan 1948:106, Freeman et al. 1961:528, Holmes and Podesta 1968:1195, Choquette et al. 1973:1087-1088, Samuel et al. 1978:2615, McNeill et al. 1984:1659).  Cases of human infestations have been infrequent (Cowan 1948:106).



A published report of 2 horses found to have Hydatid Cysts from 1993.  One of them from Washington State or so the google link says.  Both the horses were imported from Europe but shows that livestock can carry this disease and we all know that a lot of ranchers just drag dead livestock out to be eaten by coyotes or what ever is around.  
http://jvdi.org/cgi/reprint/5/1/122.pdf








The info found online goes on and on.  I only post this to show that this parasite was here when there were no wolves and that it is carried by many more hosts than just the wolf.  I am not trying to discount that wolves are a carrier of the parasite.  It is good info for anyone to have.  A person should use caution when handling any type of wild animal.

Thorough studies have been conducted and the info is all over the internet to read.  

I think most on here agree that we want low numbers of wolves in this state.  Some want none at all but we all know that it is too late for that.  It is great to educate people on things like this but using it as a scare tactic to further an anti wolf agenda is wrong in my opinion.  

[Special T]

Luvtohnt  If sound scientific practices were used by both parties, I doubt if wolves would have been reintroduced. People who are against wolves, strongly or mildly, are reacting to a poor job by the GOV. The state , US Fish & Wildlife Service and other agencies haven't been forthcoming with information. You are sceptical of wolfbaits motives... OK.. I would submit that the state and ASFWS motives aren't as objective either. Who has the power in this situation? Its defiantly not hunters farmers and the general public... I don't think you need to be a conspiracy believer to know that there must be another reason this is pushed on us with only the "balance of nature" explanation.

[Shootmoore]

Thanks lowedog, I have read two of the reports and will read the rest after work.  By reading these, I am going to suggest that the reason that the wolf is such a good host is that they more readily complete the cycle that coyotes or foxes.  Other than fawns, the coyote and fox must rely on natural or manmade death in big game species to complete the circle.  The wolf on the otherhand completes the circle by its own hunting practices. 

Shootmoore

[Sporting_Man]

If I could understood the latest from Lowedog, we have a debate over strategy. Now, if bargaining over a tough priced something, a radical starting point is good in my opinion. Tough and civilized. we have to learn that.  
Hunting community would look stupid if accepting the middle ground from get go. Why would we? We are about to lose in the future in every way, until some kind of equilibrium happens, and that is only if. Disease is more likely to be seen around. Pets are more likely to be killed and infected. Cattle - don't even go there...
Belief that wolves can be hunted like regular game is naive to be modest, since most of us can put only "salt on their tails" using our skills and game rules... This fact only calls for a radical push - political engagement along with presentations of naked facts about wolf nature. Wolves are pests and do not deserve protection equal to other game animals. Their presence in VERY limited numbers may be OK. This, in other words says that Canadian wolves were not needed to start with.  

[Lowedog]

Sporting_Man, if you are saying that the use of scare tactics is a strategy to basically eradicate wolves then yes I have a disagreement with that.

[Sporting_Man]

Lowedog,

My fear of this tapeworm is real (based on closeup experience), I'm just telling truth and yes - giving my opinion. I am truly talking from my heart about this. So, my engagement here is not tactics.  
I am too new to this forum to know political sides, who is who in this world, etc. I am glad that I am not informed about that yet, so I can interact with all... Besides I hate political correctness for any idea and consider myself politically independent.
I just happen to think that this issue is scarier than it looks like. It unfortunately comes on the top of already polarizing issue, so we can not take middle position for the sake of good behavior or modesty... Of course, this is not a pandemic potential, or anything like horror movie, but it is one uncomfortable reality that is more dangerous for some who are exposed. Imagine a country side family with kids and dogs, somewhere in the wolf range area. What is a likelihood to have their dogs retrained not to enter the house, kids to be educated all at once about their habits, immediate protection methods of their hay and feed for farm animals, etc..? All of this comes with wolves and is more and more to their face, as wolves increase their numbers... Tapeworm eggs will be around, and some humans will be infected inevitably. Awareness and protection cost them money as well. Who is going to pay? These people are not rich. They have right to be scared, angry and radical regarding this issue. And maybe Wolfbait is a good advocate for them.

[bearpaw]

In this little discussion it appears most of us have, myself included, used improper wording, misread wording, missed bits of info, or have made some assumptions. Human traits at their finest...

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

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?

I guess I should have worded "for the most part nonexistent" differently. What I meant is that during the absence of wolves, the recorded incidence of the parasite was at much lower numbers than after the introduction of canadian wolves. That fact has already been presented in the data presented by wolfbait which was penned by a leading wolf expert, I don't think I need to repeat it if everyone has read all the info in this thread.

Even with this info it could be still argued by some that science was lacking in discovery of the parasite during the wolves absense in the 50's to 90's, but that would be an assumption, so the records do without a doubt indicate a lower number of parasite findings before canadian wolves were introduced if you do not make assumptions.

It has also been stated (not exact wording here) that both carnovores and ungulates carry the disease. I think the most important factor is that wolves cover more ground in their travels thus spreading the disease via eggs in their scat far more widely than other animals. The info has also already been provided which outlines this observation by a leading wolf expert. Sporting_man has already pointed out what was also detailed in the info presented, that it would take many years for the parasites to diminish from other species after the wolves were removed in the 30's which explains why some infected animals were found in the 40's and the fact also remains that some incidents have been reported in the later 1900's. But, all assumptions aside, data shows the incidence rose overwelmingly after introduction of canadian wolves.

Luvtohunt, do you have data to refute the increased infestation of the parasite that was reported in the research findings in Idaho during the last decade after the introduction of canadian wolves?

Research presented has shown high infestations in the northern wolves and recently a 60% infestation in Idaho's (canadian) wolves. Can you show without assumption and with any data that any other animal specie is responsible for this infestation in the imported canadian wolves in Idaho?

[Special T]

Whats wrong with using the same tactices our foes are using? I'm not saying this is a scare tactic, but if i take your stance that it is how is it any different that what the opposite side is doing? If they are omitting information, making false statements or claims how is it different? Logic and emotion are both ways to "Sell" people on an idea... I think logic is the easiest to defend, but emotion has a bigger draw. The left often uses this tactic to create a ground swell of support for a cause. Once you have people's heart in a cause, the facts are a easy sell...
From a pure sales prospective it is the most efficient way of accomplishing a positive decision....   What do most stakeholders in this situation want? A fair and honest look at he facts about wolves...

[bearpaw]

And maybe Wolfbait is a good advocate for them.

I totally agree, and I will go further in saying you have Defenders on the extreme left, WDFW not far from the left, the majority of the public somewhere in the middle, and folks like wolfbait on the extreme right.

This game is for some pretty serious stakes and both sides are doing their best to garner the majority in the middle. Whom ever does the best job of influencing the middle, simply wins....

[wolfbait]

 Lowedog, no one has suggested eradicating the wolves, I doubt it could be done at this time, unless you know something the rest of us don't. The problem that most have with the wolves is no responsible management. It has been proven that the wolves more than double their numbers each year in the YNP. Wolf numbers have been underestimated on purpose from the very beginning of the wolf introduction. An over population of wolves will be what finally decides the fate of the wolves do to the diseases that they spread. This is no longer about the poor game herds or the ranchers and their livestock. These diseases will affect everyone who enjoys the outdoors. Perhaps the environmentalists running the wolf program will have reached their agendas by the time people realize what has really happened to ruin the outdoors. None of us would be having this debate if there was any wolf management. In Russia wolves were managed very strict, and the diseases were controlled, but with a wolf population out of control as is with the wolves in the lower 48, these diseases will travel far and spread rapidly. I have read to many lies that the USWFS, WDFW, and the environmentalists have told about the wolves to believe any thing they say anymore. I have written and talk to wolf experts, that have no reason to lie. Mech who was for the wolf introduction in the beginning said do to lack of management the wolf introduction is headed for a big bad train wreck. I have nothing against managed wolves, so far the only way they have hurt me is the hunting in the Methow is about shot to hell. I don't like the idea that if I shoot a wolf attacking my stock, then I will get fined. This wolf introduction has been one sided from the very beginning, and now we are hearing that not only will the wolves kill all of our game herds but that they can kill our livestock as well, and then they can infect us with their diseases. You wonder why people are getting fed up! The lack of management is what brings on the anti-wolf movement, and do to the continued lack of management in the end where do you think these wolves stand. When the pressure from people who begin getting sick from the diseases do to an over population of the wolves, what then will happen? Will it be like back in the 30' and 40's when the game department, led old horses up on the game range shot them and laced it with 1080 once the coyotes and wolves were feeding on it well?  I would imagine once the wolves have full filled their purpose, it won't end well for a lot of wolves.

[Lowedog]

And what is winning?  Getting rid of wolves all together?  

I am only trying to show that the parasite isn't exclusive to wolves and will be around regardless of if there are wolves or not.  You can say that the wolf is the greatest carrier and spreader of the parasite but where is the science to back it?  Has there been studies that other animals are inferior to the wolf as a carrier?  

I have posted links and info that show that this parasite is something that has always been around and will continue to be regardless of wolves.  If you choose to read it, it is up to you.  I only researched it because I wanted to form my own opinion on the topic at hand.  

I appreciate the info that wolfbait puts on here and find it interesting but when he then puts another spin on it by suggesting conspiracy and says he will kill any wolf he can then he loses his credibility in my book.  

[Lowedog]

Wolfbait, my last post I put up before reading your last reply.  It is no way a rebuttal to your last post.

[steen]

I don't know if this was asked already since I did not read every post.  Is the meat of infected animals safe to eat?