Wildlife and People

Synopsis of Wolf-Borne Hydatid Disease

by Dr. Valerius Geist, PhD., Professional Biologist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science

Dear friends,

We can summarize matters pertaining to the presence of hydatid disease as follows. As expected, following some time after the spread of wolves, there was the entry of sylvatic hydatid Echinococcus granulosus disease into said wolf populations and associated prey. Earlier on fox tape worm, E. multilocularis had spread into the NW United States and I understand that it is still spreading. This dreaded parasite has been reported from foxes and coyotes. Since E. multilocularis has been reported from wolves in Europe, and since wolves may be avid “mousers”, opportunity permitting, it is likely that E. multulocularis will be reported in American wolves as well. As you are aware, E. multilocularis cycles primarily between canids and rodents (mainly voles). Moreover, since the pastoral type of E. granulosus is found cycling between domestic sheep and dogs further south, it is likely that, in time, stray wolves will pick up this variant of hydatid disease. Consequently, we expect wolves, eventually, to be carriers of sylvatic, pastoral and alveolar hydatid disease.

You may have noticed that there is some discrepancy in the accounts of hydatid disease emanating from wildlife agencies as opposed to accounts by clinicians. My understanding of hydatid disease, which I have carried with me ever since my student days over 40 years ago, matches that of the clinicians. It is a silent disease, difficult to diagnose, with little specificity in symptoms, gradually developing worse over 10-20 years, and, depending on the location and number of cysts, ranging in effects from benign to lethal. It is particularly dangerous to anyone engaged in an active, sporting lifestyle, since blows to the body can lead to rupture of cysts with dreadful consequences, and prolonged, costly treatment. Alveolar hydatid disease in particular is likely to be lethal.

It is well known that domestic dogs play a very large risk factor in hydatid disease. Unlike in Northern Canada or Alaska, in the West one is dealing with much greater densities of people, dogs and carrier species such as deer or elk. High incidents of the parasite in wolves and coyotes and a high infestation rate with cysts in lungs and liver of deer and elk, put at risk the ranching, farming and rural communities. In winter time deer and elk will frequently be found on ranches close to communities. Dogs from ranches, farms and hamlets will have access to winter killed carcasses of deer and elk as well as to offal left in the field during the hunting season. Once infected with dog tape worm, the ranch and house dogs will contaminate the yard, porches, living rooms etc with hydatid eggs. There is no escape from this! Ten to twenty years down the road, hydatid disease will raise its head, in particular in persons who as toddlers crawled over floors walked over by people and dogs carrying in hydatid eggs from the outside. Please inform yourself what this is likely to mean in terms of prognosis, suffering and costs!

We know that in the past there were attempts in Finland and in Russia to eliminate, or at least control hydatid disease. In Finland the eradication of hydatid disease was accomplished by diminishing wolf numbers and treating domestic dogs with anti-helmithic drugs. In Russia, controlling wolf density in spring and summer led to significant declines in the disease in the prey (see p. 83 of Will Graves 2007, Wolves in Russia. Detselig, Calgary [here, here]). I am suggesting that eliminating hydatid disease be discussed, and suggest the following approach.

1.) Assuming the number of wolf packs can be reduced so as to retain a vibrant, abundant prey base, that developmental studies proceed on how to create bait stations that are accepted by wolves, with bait containing anti-helminthic drugs that are readily eaten by wolves. I am aware that this will not be a quick project. Rather I expect that wolves will accept bait stations, let alone the bait, only very gradually. It will take time, experimentation and sophisticated know how to make bait stations operational. However, once accepted by wolves, the bait stations will break the hydatid cycle between wolves and ungulates. Over time, this will lead to diminished infections of deer and elk, and this with re-infection with the parasite by wolves and coyotes.

2.) Unfortunately, under moist and cold conditions hydatid eggs remain viable for months and may even infect after three and a half years. Under dry, hot conditions the eggs die quickly. Burning the understory in forests will not eliminate the dangers from hydatid eggs, but will certainly reduce such. It’s a policy worth looking at.

3.) Simultaneously, a thorough campaign must be initiated to regularly de-worm dogs in danger areas as well as encourage specific hygienic measures. Here it means winning the ears and the trust of the rural communities.

Finally we have to look to history. Wolves have been exterminated from lived in landscapes universally because they, or their diseases, posed a serious threat to affected people, livestock and wild life. The lessons from history are that we can at best live with wolves if such are relatively few, the abundance of natural prey is high, and the risk from diseases non existent. We have the means and intelligence to achieve such.

22 Wolves

From Don P.:

Some friends in Wyoming sent me this photo taken recently in Wyoming near Jackson. Twenty-two wolves in ONE pack. The destruction this pack can cause in a single day is mind boggling.

Click for larger image.

There are some areas where the game herds have already been decimated to the point that the herds will never recover to reasonable numbers in our lifetime. And it is only going to get worse.

We are working feverishly to come up with a silver bullet idea, pending the upcoming court litigation. Will keep you all posted.

On Predator-Prey Relations

We have recently posted two engaging “popular” articles by Dr. Charles E. Kay concerning predator-prey relations (or relationships or interactions).

Dr. Kay (of Utah State University) is one of our premier wildlife ecologists and is the author/editor of Wilderness and Political Ecology: Aboriginal Influences and the Original State of Nature [here], author of Are Lightning Fires Unnatural? A Comparison of Aboriginal and Lightning Ignition Rates in the United States [here], co-author of Native American influences on the development of forest ecosystems [here], and numerous other scientific papers.

In Wolf Predation: More Bad News [here], Dr Kay discusses apparent or predator meditated competition, using wolves, moose, caribou, and deer as examples.

Predator meditated competition is a tricky concept. Most people are aware that predators can reduce a prey population, and that the predator population can then fall due to a lack of prey. As the predators decline, the prey population rebounds. Then the predator population rebounds, and the cycle begins anew.

But this model of predator-prey relations is overly simplified. In the real world, predators often have alternative choices besides one type of prey. If the alternative prey is sufficiently numerous, the predator populations do not always decline so much. The primary prey is thus still subject to predation, and it can be driven to extinction.

In effect, the various prey populations are in competition with each other, not for food but for predator avoidance.

more »

The Truth about Idaho’s and Montana’s 2009 Wolf Harvest Quotas

By George Dovel

From The Outdoorsman, No. 35, July-Nov 2009 [here]

On March 6, 2008, in an effort to pacify Defenders of Wildlife and other wolf extremist groups, the Idaho F&G Commission ignored the 15 breeding pairs (150 wolves) goal established by the Legislature and approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Interior Secretary. Instead, the Commission adopted a bastard plan that has never been submitted to the full Legislature for approval or rejection as required by Idaho law.

The 2008-2012 IDFG Plan agreed to manage for a minimum population of 518-732 wolves for five years …

In his testimony to the Court, Mech explained: “Every year, most wolf populations almost double in the spring through the birth of pups” [Mech 1970]. For example in May 2008, there will not be 1,500 wolves [in the Northern Rocky Mountains], but 3,000! …

Without any science to support their claim, Idaho F&G Commissioners said they were going to cut the minimum estimated end-of-year wolf population from 732 in 2007 to ~520 in 2008 using only a fall hunting season which also prohibited two methods used to harvest Idaho bears and mountain lions!

In other words, they ignored biology and science and pretended they could do what no other state or Canadian province with wolves has ever been able to do. …

more »

Count the Caribou

A photo from this year’s annual caribou survey for northwestern Alaska:

Click for larger image. Thanks and a tip of the parka to T. Mayer of Save Our Elk [here]

Greater Yellowstone elk suffer worse nutrition and lower birth rates due to wolves

By Tracy Ellig, MSU News Service, July 15, 2009 [here]

Bozeman — Wolves have caused elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to change their behavior and foraging habits so much so that herds are having fewer calves, mainly due to changes in their nutrition, according to a study published this week by Montana State University researchers.

During winter, nearly all elk in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are losing weight, said Scott Creel, ecology professor at MSU, and lead author on the study which appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Essentially, they are slowly starving,” Creel said. “Despite grazing and browsing during the winter, elk suffer a net loss of weight. If winter continued, they would all die, because dormant plants provide limited protein and energy, and snow makes it more difficult to graze efficiently.”

With the presence of wolves, elk browse more - eating woody shrubs or low tree branches in forested areas where they are safer - as opposed to grazing on grass in open meadows where they are more visible, and therefore more vulnerable to wolves.

Browsing provides food of good quality, but the change in foraging habits results in elk taking in 27 percent less food than their counterparts that live without wolves, the study estimates.

“Elk regularly hunted by wolves are essentially starving faster than those not hunted by wolves,” said Creel, who shares authorship on the paper with his former doctoral students John Winnie, Jr., and David Christianson.

The decline in the Greater Yellowstone’s elk population since the reintroduction of wolves in 1995 has been greater than was originally predicted. In the three winters prior to the reintroduction of wolves, elk on Yellowstone’s northern range numbered roughly between 17,000 and 19,000. In the three winters prior to 2008, annual elk counts had declined to between 6,738 and 6,279.

more »

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Supports Wolf Delisting

MISSOULA, Mont.—U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy on Friday granted a motion allowing the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to enter an amicus curiae brief supporting state-regulated wolf hunting in Idaho and Montana.

The move means RMEF positions will be considered against an emergency injunction filed by 13 environmental groups asking the judge to stop a planned hunt and return gray wolves to the endangered species list.

A hearing is scheduled for Monday and Molloy’s ruling could follow soon afterward.

The Elk Foundation’s amicus curiae brief is posted [here]

Wolf Delisting Declaration and Exhibits to RMEF’s Amicus Brief Filed 8.28.09 [here, 5.19MB]

“We’re grateful that Judge Molloy has agreed to hear our side of this issue,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Once you cut away the hysterics and hyperbole, this is a straightforward wildlife management issue. State wildlife agencies have proven their professionalism and capability to balance predators with other resident species. They’ve been successfully managing wildlife for decades and we have total confidence in them.”

The Elk Foundation’s brief reinforces four main points:

* Historic success of modern, hunter-based conservation in North America.

* Viewpoints of hunters who continue to pay for the big-game resources that made wolf recovery possible.

* RMEF-funded research, along with other scientific and anecdotal evidence, showing that wolf populations are fully recovered and that, where wolves are present with elk, wolves are having detrimental impacts on elk.

* State wildlife agencies are best suited to manage wolves alongside other species.

About the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

Snowy peaks, dark timber basins and grassy meadows. RMEF is leading an elk country initiative that has conserved or enhanced habitat on over 5.6 million acres — a land area equivalent to a swath three miles wide and stretching along the entire Continental Divide from Canada to Mexico. RMEF also works to open, secure and improve public access for hunting, fishing and other recreation. Get involved at www.rmef.org or 800-CALL ELK.

Wolves — When Ignorance is Bliss

Wolves mustn’t be coddled if we hope to balance them with modern ecosystems — and to avoid becoming prey

by Valerius Geist

Nothing convinces like personal experience! And I too am slave to it. As an academic I confess to this with some distress, because by training, experience and attitude I should be above it. That I am not alone in this habit is of little comfort. And so it was with wolves.

In my field research on mountain sheep, goats, moose etc. I also observed wolves, and my experience with North American wolves matches that of colleagues. Consequently, during my academic career and four years into retirement I thought of wolves as harmless, echoing the words of more experienced colleagues while considering the reports to the contrary from Russia as interesting, but not relevant to an understanding of North American wolves. I trusted my wolf-studying colleagues to have done their homework and I dismissed light-heartedly the experiences of others to the contrary. I was wrong!

I saw my first wolf in the wild early one morning in May 1959, on Pyramid Mountain in Wells Gray Provincial Park, British Columbia. I spotted an ash-gray wolf, with a motley coat, sitting and watching me from a quarter mile away with an eager, attentive look about his dark face. His red tongue was protruding, while golden morning light played on his fur. In the spotting scope his image was crisp and clear. I do not know if my heart skipped a beat, but it well might have. Whose wouldn’t?

Five months prior, in early January, I had had an informative brush with a wolf pack just a few miles from that spot. A friend and I were observing moose. We were in the midst of a migration and some two dozen, mostly bulls who had shed antlers, were dispersed over a huge burn. A few were feeding on the tall willows, but most were resting in the knee-deep snow. Suddenly we heard a low, drawn-out moan. When I glanced at the moose I saw that all were standing alert, facing down the valley. We were green then and perplexed about this unearthly sound.

As if to answer us, a high-pitched voice broke in, and then another and another. We realized we were hearing wolves. Within minutes a chorus was underway—and so were the moose. All were hastily moving up the valley and 10 minutes later the moose had vanished. I opted to stay at our lookout while my friend borrowed my rifle and went to search for the wolves. He saw them at dusk as they walked across a small lake, a pack of seven. Try as he may, the rifle would not fire; it had frozen in the great cold. This may have been kind fortune, for the first wolf I shot with that rifle instantly attacked me, but collapsed before reaching me. The second screamed, and that has triggered pack attacks in the past. Had the pack attacked, I would have been minus a friend in minutes. While a large man can subdue an attacking wolf, even strangle it, there is no defense against an attacking pack.

more »

Predation, Not Habitat Loss, Governs Prey Population Dynamics

Most animal population dynamics are governed by predator-prey relations, not “habitat”. For instance, even though 25 million acres were “set aside” for spotted owls 20 years ago, their population has plunged by 60 percent or more. Yes, there have been millions of acres of old-growth owl forests destroyed by catastrophic fire, but not 60 percent. The main reason for plunging owl populations is the rising populations of their predators: great horned owls, golden eagles, peregrine falcons, and other raptors.

“Habitat loss” has been so ingrained into the mass consciousness though, it is difficult to see how that ecobabble nonsense will ever be debunked. Most scientists are brainwashed, even (especially?) wildlife biologists.

But not all. The following article appeared in the Anchorage Daily News last week. It seems that moose population dynamics are governed by predation of moose calves by bears.

Newborn moose calves battle very slim odds

by Ned Rozell, Alalska Science, Anchorage Daily News, July 18th, 2009 [here]

Any moose calf alive in mid-summer is a lucky animal. If the calf was born a twin, it has probably seen its sibling pulled down and eaten by a bear. If the calf was born alone, it probably stood close to its mother as she reared on her hind legs and pounded a predator with her hooves.

In late May all over Alaska, female moose find a secluded spot to birth a calf, twin calves or sometimes triplets. In the weeks that follow, many of these gangly newborns fall prey to bears and wolves. In most areas of Alaska, more moose calves die than survive.

Mark Bertram is a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wildlife biologist at Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge. In a study he did more than a decade ago, while a helicopter pilot distracted cow moose from the air, Bertram and others scrambled to birthing sites and attached radio collars to newborn calves. By following radio signals after the calves stopped moving, the biologists were able to find dead calves and determine what killed them.

In the study at Yukon Flats, an area larger than Maryland where Alaska’s longest river reaches north of the Arctic Circle, Bertram has found the remains of a majority of the 29 moose he collared. Fifty-five percent died in one month. Three-quarters of those baby moose were killed by either black bears, which are abundant in Yukon Flats, or grizzly bears. …

“It’s real common for just 30 percent of calves to survive their first year,” Bertram said.

In studies done elsewhere in Alaska and the Yukon, the numbers agree. North of Tok, 25 percent of calves collared survived their first year.

Just 19 percent survived in a study performed in southwest Yukon. Around 30 percent made it through a year in two studies done around Galena and Nelchina.

Terry Bowyer, a biologist formerly with the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Institute of Arctic Biology, collared cow moose in Denali National Park and kept track of her young for four years.

Only five calves out of 44 made it through their first summers. A vast majority of those were killed by grizzly bears. …

Ned Rozell is a science writer at the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

New Revelations About Reintroduced Wolves

By George Dovel, The Outdoorsman, Bulletin 34, April-June 2009

Full text [here]

Selected excerpts:

In the early 1980s the 197-page unpublished research report, “Wolves of Central Idaho,” surfaced. In it, co-authors Timm Kaminski and Jerome Hansen estimated that elk and deer populations in six of the nine national forests in the proposed Central Idaho Wolf Recovery Area could support a total of 219 wolves without decreasing existing deer and elk populations in those forests.

They based this on an estimated 16.6 deer or elk killed by each wolf annually, and on estimated increases in elk and/or deer populations from 1981-1985 in the two-thirds of forests where they had increased.

But even if their estimated prey numbers and calculations were accurate, their report said only 17 wolves could be maintained in the Salmon National Forest, five in the Challis NF, and none in the Panhandle, Sawtooth and Bitterroot Forests. Yet the obvious question of what to do when the number of wolves in any National Forest or game management unit exceeded the ability of the prey base to support them was not adequately addressed.

Relocating “Problem” Wolves in Idaho Wilderness

Although there were increased reports of sightings of single wolves or pairs in Idaho during the late 1970s and early 80s and credible reports of at least two wolf packs with pups, no confirmed wolf depredation on livestock had been recorded for nearly half a century. Realizing that livestock killing would occur as wolf numbers increased, Kaminski and Hansen recommended relocating livestock-killing wolves into the central Idaho wilderness areas.

That was written more than 25 years ago …

[Tweny-five years later] Tribal, FWS and State biologists [have] all ignored wolf expert David Mech’s warning that relocating wolves that killed livestock did not stop their killing livestock. Transplanting even more wolves into areas like the Selway and Lolo Zones, with inadequate elk calf survival to support any wolves, guaranteed an accelerated decline in the elk population and the exploitation of alternate prey.

At a Predator-Prey Symposium in Boise, Idaho on Jan. 8, 1999, the featured speaker – North America’s top wild ungulate authority Dr. Valerius Geist – spent two hours explaining to federal, state and university wildlife biologists why wolf populations must be carefully controlled to maintain a healthy population of their prey species. Idaho biologists and members of the Idaho Wolf Oversight Committee appeared to listen carefully – but later invented excuses not to follow his expert advice. …

more »

Elk Population Plunges in Montana

For a long time wildlife experts outside the Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks have been pointing out the effects of uncontrolled wolf predation on Northern Rocky Mountain elk herds.

This week the MFWP reached the same conclusion. Department biologists tracking elk numbers have noticed an alarming decline in the cow-calf ratio, a sign of imminent population crash.

As a result, the MFWP is reducing hunting permits, although over-hunting by humans is not the problem. The exploding wolf population is — wolves have been mass slaughtering elk at an unsustainable rate.

There is no plan to limit wolf numbers. The USFWS has twice attempted to delist wolves, and been rebuffed both times by federal judges pretending to be wolf biologists. A third attempt to delist wolves will reach litigation status this month. Despite a consensus among government, university, and private wolf experts that the Canadian gray wolf is fully “recovered” and not in any danger of extinction (it never was), the courts have stymied realistic wildlife management at every turn.

From the Missoulian Online:

FWP may lower number of elk permits in Bitterroot, Lower Clark Fork basin

By ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian, June 17, 2009 [here]

Elk numbers in some parts of western Montana are so low, state Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials may dial back the number of hunting permits they release this summer.

“Something of this magnitude does not happen every year,” said Mike Thompson, wildlife manager for the FWP Region 2 office in Missoula. “If you’d asked me about this two months ago, I’ve have said ‘no problem.’ But we’ve never seen such a low proportion of calves to cows across such a broad landscape as we did this year in the Bitterroot.”

In February (which was more than two months ago) we noted the crashing elk population in Montana [here]. Glad to see MFWP is catching the clue, finally.

more »

Wolf Slaughter Video

The Killing Sport by Renee Walters is [here]

Wolf Protest in Kalispell

From the Eastern Montana Daily Inter Lake:

Hunters vent frustrations

By Jim Mann, Daily Inter Lake, February 27, 2009 [here]

About 70 hunters, clad in camouflage and orange vests, gathered in front of Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks headquarters in Kalispell on Friday to protest the prolonged delay in Montana assuming management of gray wolves.

“We’ve got to manage these animals,” said Brad Borden, one of the protest organizers. “They haven’t been managed. They’ve just been allowed to have the run of the place.”

The protesters cheered as passing motorists supportively honked their horns. They carried placards that plainly expressed their purpose for a protest that will continue today: “Elk — the next endangered species,” “Feds and Wolves, out of control,” “Save our wildlife, not the wolves,” “FWP and hunters are the best management tools, not wolves!”

Wolf recovery goals have been exceeded every year since 2002 in the Northern Rockies, but litigation led by environmental groups has repeatedly derailed delisting efforts.

In January, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service once again moved to remove wolves from protection under the Endangered Species Act, but the incoming Obama administration suspended that action in order to review the delisting rule. … [more]

$740 Million Goes to States for Fish and Wildlife Projects

U.S. Fish & Wildlife News Release [here]

Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced today more than $740.9 million will be distributed to the fish and wildlife agencies of the 50 states, commonwealths, the District of Columbia, and territories to fund fish and wildlife conservation, boater access to public waters, and hunter and aquatic education. These Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program funds come from excise taxes and import duties on sporting firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, sportfishing equipment, electric outboard motors, and fuel taxes attributable to motorboats and small engines. … [more]

Note that the money comes FROM hunters and fishermen and goes TO something OTHER THAN management of game animals and game fish. That is known is the parlance as bait-and-switch, or more plainly, yet another gummit ripoff.

For more information on this issue please see:

Ripping Off Idaho Hunters and Fishermen [here]

Corruption, Featherbedding, and Looting the Idaho Treasury [here]

The High Costs of Wolves [here]

Secret Meetings, Wolves, Missing Money, and the Next Possible Director of US Fish and Wildlife Service [here]

more »

Conservation Groups Urge Obama to Delist Wolves

From Wolf Crossing [here]

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation News Release, Feb 7, 2009 [here]

MISSOULA, Mont.—President Obama this week will receive a letter initiated by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and 32 partner conservation organizations urging removal of federal protections for specific populations of gray wolves.

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar also will receive a copy of the letter.

“Together, the signees represent millions of America’s most active conservationists. We’re hopeful that our impressive coalition will help influence President Obama to clear the way for individual states to manage their wolf populations,” said David Allen, president and CEO of the Elk Foundation.

The Elk Foundation continues to voice its longstanding support for delisting wolves under the Endangered Species Act, enabling state-based management. In December, RMEF joined with 18 other groups urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist wolves in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. In July, a judge sided with activists who challenged federal data showing that wolf populations are fully recovered in the northern Rockies. An injunction halted delisting and drew criticism from the Elk Foundation.

Allen urged Elk Foundation members and others to make their voices heard individually by contacting their state and federal legislators.

Here’s the full content of the letter:

more »