Yellowstone is Dead
01-21-2011, 06:46 PM
#61
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 674
Are you kidding me? Coyotes are the most liberally hunt animal in the U.S most states its year around season and any weapon of choice no limits is that not trying to exterminate them?
01-21-2011, 10:19 PM
#65
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 59
I truely understand the need for the wolf to be managed by hunting. It seems to me that Wyoming is the reason this is not happeneing. All that said, the wolf belongs in all national parks and I enjoy sharing my hunting areas with them. There is NO doubt the wolves were migrating up and down the Flathead River for decades.........."Canadian Greys" or whatever.........big uns. No conspiracey.
Judge Rules USFWS Was “Arbitrary and Capricious” In Rejecting Wyoming’s Wolf Plan
November 18, 2010
Editor’s Note: The following is a press release sent out by the Wyoming Wolf Coalition. The Wyoming Wolf Coalition is a petitioner-intervenor in the case of the State of Wyoming v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This court ruling should fly in the face of those who chastised the state of Wyoming for holding out on their belief that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was wrong to first approve the Wyoming Wolf Plan and then reject it once under pressure from environmental groups.
CHEYENNE, Nov. 18, 2010–In a Nov. 18, 2010 ruling, United States District Judge Alan Johnson ruled that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) rejection of the Wyoming Wolf Management plan was arbitrary and capricious. The court remanded the issue back to the USFWS to fix.
“We are pleased with the decision,” Harriet Hageman, attorney for the Wyoming Wolf Coalition, stated. “We have felt all along the USFWS actions weren’t based on science.”
The Wyoming Wolf Coalition is a petitioner-intervenor in the case of the State of Wyoming v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
“The deal from the beginning was that the gray wolf would be introduced into and managed in the Yellowstone area,” Hageman continued. “The FWS rejection of the Wyoming Wolf Management plan was an effort to force Wyoming to adopt a management plan that ensures that the wolves move throughout the State. That is directly contrary to everything that the FWS told us when they brought the wolves into Yellowstone.”
Judge Johnson wrote in his ruling: “There is no scientific or commercial data that suggest the state’s dual classification of wolves, in and of itself, cannot meet, accomplish, and maintain the identified recovery goals in the GYA, including northwestern Wyoming.”
He continued in his writing: “….the agency’s requirement that the trophy game management area, rather than that portion of northwestern Wyoming (including the GYA recovery area) necessary to facilitate movement and ensure dispersal of wolves so as to preserve genetic connectivity and to ensure that self sustaining populations will be maintained above recovery goals, is arbitrary and capricious and should be set aside.”
In the order Judge Johnson remanded the matter back to the USFWS saying the agency should determine: “…whether the proposed regulatory framework ensures the conservation and protection of gray wolves in an approved trophy game area in northwestern Wyoming as required by the Endangered Species Act, and to analyze in this context the defense of property and wolf depredation laws in considering whether the management plan is an adequate regulatory mechanism.”
It is now up to the USFWS to determine if they will appeal the decision. If they appeal, the case would go before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In 2004, 27 different associations, including agriculture, wildlife interests and county government joined together to form the “Wolf Coalition.”
“Wildlife interests, county governments and agriculture have come together recognizing the need to protect livestock and the depleted wildlife populations,” Hageman stated. “This broad diversity of organizations shows the significant impacts wolf introduction is having on Wyoming citizens.
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/1 … wolf-plan/
01-21-2011, 10:53 PM
#67
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 59
From MTTdrahthaar-Sorry to be a sarcastic jerk again--- Thats alright MTT those of us who are exposing the lies of the wolf introduction are use to dealing with people like you, just don't go all teary eyed on me. The threats and cussing I can handle from the wolf cult it's when they start sobbing that I get a little sick to my stomach.
Lose wolves, lose the wilderness
Bob Hayes has some advice for Yukoners who want to revisit the wolf cull: don’t bother.
“It’s completely not worth it,” he said.
Hayes worked as Yukon’s wolf biologist for 18 years, until 2000. During that time he helped design and deliver Yukon’s wolf control programs.
His conclusions? It’s costly. It often doesn’t work, and when it does, its effects are always temporary.
And, ultimately, it cheapens the Yukon by transforming wilderness into a glorified meat farm.
Hayes has, quite literally, written the book on the subject: Wolves of the Yukon. It’s a decade in the making, and, by luck, its release later this month coincides with a review of the territory’s wolf management plan.
Hunters have long lamented low moose, caribou and sheep populations in the Yukon. Hayes is familiar with the usual circle of blame.
Resident hunters blame First Nations. First Nations blame outfitters. Outfitters blame resident hunters.
And everyone blames wolves, whose hunting prowess has inspired admiration, fear and resentment.
Yet our many efforts to curb wolf numbers in the territory have proven to be a dismal failure. Not poison, nor trapping, nor aerial shooting has made any more than a temporary dent in wolf numbers.
Today, Yukon’s wolf population remains essentially unchanged from what it was believed to be 10,000 years ago. The territorial government believes we have approximately 4,500 wolves - one of them for every eight of us.
Wolves take too many moose and caribou calves, is the common refrain. Yet wolves are just doing what wolves have done here for thousands of years.
During that time, moose and wolves have co-evolved, shaping each other’s migration and reproduction patterns. Hayes suspects the Yukon timber wolf’s reliance on moose is the reason why our wolves are among the biggest in the world.
In wildlife management circles, wolf “control” is almost always a euphemism for kill. But we’ve tried it all, and none of it has made a lasting impact on wolf numbers.
Between 1982 and 1997, Yukon’s wildlife branch conducted broad scale wolf killing programs to boost the number of moose, “at great cost to taxpayers,” according to Hayes. During that time helicopter crews shot 849 wolves in the Coast Mountains, Finlayson and Aishihik.
In the Coast Mountains, moose numbers remained stagnant. Hayes believes that’s mainly because grizzly bears, rather than wolves, were killing most calves.
In both Finlayson and Aishihik, moose populations exploded - an apparent success. But, once wolf control stopped, wolf numbers bounced back within just four years.
As a result, Finlayson’s moose and caribou populations spiked, then spiraled back to where they started within a decade.
Aishihik saw similar results. The killing of 189 wolves allowed moose numbers to double and caribou to triple. But, within a decade of the wolf cull, these populations had sunk yet again.
The lesson learned? For wolf-killing to be effective, it would need to be repeated every few years. Hayes questions whether Yukoners have the stomach, or deep pockets, to keep it up. He clearly remembers how Yukon’s wolf kill program drew the condemnation of animal rights protesters across the country, who converged on Whitehorse.
“They burned tires on the Alaska Highway, chained themselves in the Yukon legislature, damaged our aircraft, followed me to work, and stalked my house,” he writes. “I had a real concern and fear for the lives of my family and crew. I lost a close friendship with a good family over wolf control that remains a raw memory years later.”
If we don’t shoot wolves, then what? Hayes sees more promise in a wolf sterilization program he helped run in Aishihik at that time. But this, too, would be a costly solution to maintain.
Haye’s preferred solution? “Leave them alone. Just leave them alone. Things will work themselves out.”
But, if Yukoners must kill wolves to allow moose numbers to grow, he’d like to see this only done on a small scale, near affected communities. To this end, Hayes offers a practical suggestion: end Yukon’s “archaic trapline ownership restrictions that give a few trappers the exclusive right to trap areas around communities, or not.”
Yukon has low moose populations compared to elsewhere in Canada for good reason. “The Yukon is a complete wilderness,” Hayes writes. Part of that means having to share big game with predators.
Hayes looks at how Alaskans have driven bears and wolves away from Anchorage and Fairbanks for many decades. The result: a dramatic rise in the number of moose nearby, of up to 100 moose for every 100 kilometres, compared to the Yukon average of 15 moose over the same area.
That’s a sevenfold increase in density. It’s also replacing wilderness with something else.
“It is wildlife farming,” writes Hayes. “Is that what we want in the Yukon?”
This is not merely a philosophical concern. Tourists flock to the Yukon in large part because of the allure of its wilderness. “They may not want to meet these dangerous beasts close up, but most tourists revel in simply knowing that grizzly bears and wolves exist and they could be just around the next bend in the river,” Hayes writes.
Yukon has one big advantage over Alaska, as Hayes sees it: there are far fewer of us. Alaska’s population is nearly 700,000, while Yukon’s population is close to 35,000.
It also helps that Yukon’s wolves are among the best-studied in the world. To date, scientists have tracked the movements of nearly 400 of them with radio collars.
“If we can’t do it here, we can’t do it anywhere,” said Hayes.
But that will likely require an adjustment of our expectations. Hayes frequently hears a telling expression in hunting circles: “I didn’t get my moose.”
There’s nothing wrong with the desire to live off of local meat. “But it’s not your moose,” said Hayes.
“We can’t all get a moose all the time, because natural predators are going to regulate that population.”
Hayes, it should be noted, is no tofu-munching animal-rights radical. He hunts. He’s never shot a wolf, but he knew when he accepted his government post that a big part of his job would be helping to kill them. He accepted the job because it was a chance to learn more about these fascinating animals.
Agree with Hayes or not, Wolves of the Yukon ought to be required reading for anyone who plans to weigh in on the wolf control debate, which should heat up soon.
Contact John Thompson at
[email protected].
http://yukon-news.com/news/21266/
(our many efforts to curb wolf numbers in the territory have proven to be a dismal failure. Not poison, nor trapping, nor aerial shooting has made any more than a temporary dent in wolf numbers.)
(The lesson learned? For wolf-killing to be effective, it would need to be repeated every few years.)
Lose wolves, lose the wilderness
Bob Hayes has some advice for Yukoners who want to revisit the wolf cull: don’t bother.
“It’s completely not worth it,” he said.
Hayes worked as Yukon’s wolf biologist for 18 years, until 2000. During that time he helped design and deliver Yukon’s wolf control programs.
His conclusions? It’s costly. It often doesn’t work, and when it does, its effects are always temporary.
And, ultimately, it cheapens the Yukon by transforming wilderness into a glorified meat farm.
Hayes has, quite literally, written the book on the subject: Wolves of the Yukon. It’s a decade in the making, and, by luck, its release later this month coincides with a review of the territory’s wolf management plan.
Hunters have long lamented low moose, caribou and sheep populations in the Yukon. Hayes is familiar with the usual circle of blame.
Resident hunters blame First Nations. First Nations blame outfitters. Outfitters blame resident hunters.
And everyone blames wolves, whose hunting prowess has inspired admiration, fear and resentment.
Yet our many efforts to curb wolf numbers in the territory have proven to be a dismal failure. Not poison, nor trapping, nor aerial shooting has made any more than a temporary dent in wolf numbers.
Today, Yukon’s wolf population remains essentially unchanged from what it was believed to be 10,000 years ago. The territorial government believes we have approximately 4,500 wolves - one of them for every eight of us.
Wolves take too many moose and caribou calves, is the common refrain. Yet wolves are just doing what wolves have done here for thousands of years.
During that time, moose and wolves have co-evolved, shaping each other’s migration and reproduction patterns. Hayes suspects the Yukon timber wolf’s reliance on moose is the reason why our wolves are among the biggest in the world.
In wildlife management circles, wolf “control” is almost always a euphemism for kill. But we’ve tried it all, and none of it has made a lasting impact on wolf numbers.
Between 1982 and 1997, Yukon’s wildlife branch conducted broad scale wolf killing programs to boost the number of moose, “at great cost to taxpayers,” according to Hayes. During that time helicopter crews shot 849 wolves in the Coast Mountains, Finlayson and Aishihik.
In the Coast Mountains, moose numbers remained stagnant. Hayes believes that’s mainly because grizzly bears, rather than wolves, were killing most calves.
In both Finlayson and Aishihik, moose populations exploded - an apparent success. But, once wolf control stopped, wolf numbers bounced back within just four years.
As a result, Finlayson’s moose and caribou populations spiked, then spiraled back to where they started within a decade.
Aishihik saw similar results. The killing of 189 wolves allowed moose numbers to double and caribou to triple. But, within a decade of the wolf cull, these populations had sunk yet again.
The lesson learned? For wolf-killing to be effective, it would need to be repeated every few years. Hayes questions whether Yukoners have the stomach, or deep pockets, to keep it up. He clearly remembers how Yukon’s wolf kill program drew the condemnation of animal rights protesters across the country, who converged on Whitehorse.
“They burned tires on the Alaska Highway, chained themselves in the Yukon legislature, damaged our aircraft, followed me to work, and stalked my house,” he writes. “I had a real concern and fear for the lives of my family and crew. I lost a close friendship with a good family over wolf control that remains a raw memory years later.”
If we don’t shoot wolves, then what? Hayes sees more promise in a wolf sterilization program he helped run in Aishihik at that time. But this, too, would be a costly solution to maintain.
Haye’s preferred solution? “Leave them alone. Just leave them alone. Things will work themselves out.”
But, if Yukoners must kill wolves to allow moose numbers to grow, he’d like to see this only done on a small scale, near affected communities. To this end, Hayes offers a practical suggestion: end Yukon’s “archaic trapline ownership restrictions that give a few trappers the exclusive right to trap areas around communities, or not.”
Yukon has low moose populations compared to elsewhere in Canada for good reason. “The Yukon is a complete wilderness,” Hayes writes. Part of that means having to share big game with predators.
Hayes looks at how Alaskans have driven bears and wolves away from Anchorage and Fairbanks for many decades. The result: a dramatic rise in the number of moose nearby, of up to 100 moose for every 100 kilometres, compared to the Yukon average of 15 moose over the same area.
That’s a sevenfold increase in density. It’s also replacing wilderness with something else.
“It is wildlife farming,” writes Hayes. “Is that what we want in the Yukon?”
This is not merely a philosophical concern. Tourists flock to the Yukon in large part because of the allure of its wilderness. “They may not want to meet these dangerous beasts close up, but most tourists revel in simply knowing that grizzly bears and wolves exist and they could be just around the next bend in the river,” Hayes writes.
Yukon has one big advantage over Alaska, as Hayes sees it: there are far fewer of us. Alaska’s population is nearly 700,000, while Yukon’s population is close to 35,000.
It also helps that Yukon’s wolves are among the best-studied in the world. To date, scientists have tracked the movements of nearly 400 of them with radio collars.
“If we can’t do it here, we can’t do it anywhere,” said Hayes.
But that will likely require an adjustment of our expectations. Hayes frequently hears a telling expression in hunting circles: “I didn’t get my moose.”
There’s nothing wrong with the desire to live off of local meat. “But it’s not your moose,” said Hayes.
“We can’t all get a moose all the time, because natural predators are going to regulate that population.”
Hayes, it should be noted, is no tofu-munching animal-rights radical. He hunts. He’s never shot a wolf, but he knew when he accepted his government post that a big part of his job would be helping to kill them. He accepted the job because it was a chance to learn more about these fascinating animals.
Agree with Hayes or not, Wolves of the Yukon ought to be required reading for anyone who plans to weigh in on the wolf control debate, which should heat up soon.
Contact John Thompson at
[email protected].
http://yukon-news.com/news/21266/
(our many efforts to curb wolf numbers in the territory have proven to be a dismal failure. Not poison, nor trapping, nor aerial shooting has made any more than a temporary dent in wolf numbers.)
(The lesson learned? For wolf-killing to be effective, it would need to be repeated every few years.)
01-21-2011, 11:32 PM
#68
Spike
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 59
From MTTdrahthaar-Sorry to be a sarcastic jerk again,
And you want to talk diseases? Scare all the soccer moms out there? Push the same type of rhetoric as the PETA folks? Nice. But I would suggest doing a little research on it first. You want to talk Echinoccus granulosus or multilocularis? Occurance of E. granulosus(the one wolves tend to carry) is 1 in a million. Even where its considered endemic(northern AK), its 1 per 100,000. And funny where it has been seen in the lower 48, its most common(if you want to call it common) in California, Arizona, NM. You think they were drop shipping MV wolves there too? Or is it possible there are greater risk factors than wolves. See, rhetoric. ANY place anyone ever had sheep, you could have this. Blaming wolves and the gubmint is a waste of time.
Coyotes carry multilocularis, which causes alveolar(lung) cysts. I don't hear anyone calling for extermination there.
And since its such a huge scary issue, why do I see all these successful hunters and trappers in BC and AB giving great big hugs to their wolves for their hero shots. No gloves, no masks, no protection from this horrific affliction. Don't spew that garbage. You had people scared to go pick huckleberries last summer, afraid they are going to pick up Echinococcus.
I'm glad you brought the disease issue up MTT as I have much information on the subject and of course just itching to share "all" of it with you. Now don't try to stop me, I just know you are half out of your mind with anticipation.
USFWS Basically Ignored Concerns About Disease From Wolves Before Reintroduction
1. Diseases, Worms, and Parasites. I was surprised that the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) did not make a detailed study on the impact issue of diseases, worms, and parasites (page 9). I believe an EIS is not complete without a detailed study covering the diseases, worms and parasites that wolves would carry, harbor, and spread around in YNP (Yellowstone National Park) and in Idaho. The study should cover the potential negative impact of these diseases on wild and domestic animals, and on humans. I believe the potential negative impact of the diseases is a valid reason not to reintroduce wolves into YNP and to Idaho.
Countless articles about the diseases, worms and parasites carried, harbored, and spread around by wide ranging wolves have been published in a magazine sponsored by the former Soviet Ministry of Agriculture. For example, a Soviet biologist reported that gray wolves are carriers of a number of types of worms and parasites which are dangerous for animals and for humans. According to this biologist, the main one is cestoda. Over approximately a ten year period, the Soviets conducted a controlled study on the subject. They made the following observations. When and where wolves were almost eliminated in a given research area, (where almost all wolves were killed by each spring and new wolves moved into the controlled area only in the fall) infections of taenia hydatiqena in moose and boar did not occur in more than 30 to 35% of the animals. The rate of infections were 3 to 5 examples in each animal. When and where wolves were not killed in the controlled areas in the spring, and where there were 1 or 2 litters of wolf cubs, the infections in moose and boar of taenia hydatiqena reached 100% and up to 30 to 40 examples of infection (infestation) were in each moose and boar. Each year the Soviets studied 20 moose and 50 boar. The research was documented and proved that even in the presence of foxes, raccoons and domestic dogs, ONLY THE WOLF was the basic source of the infections in the moose and boar. Examinations of 9 wolves showed that each one was infected with taenia hydatiqena with an intensity of 5 to 127 examples. This confirmed the Soviet conclusions. The damage done by taenia hydatiqena to cloven footed game animals is documented by Soviet veterinarians. My concern is that if gray wolves in the former USSR carried and spread to game animals dangerous parasites, then there must be danger that gray wolves in YNP and in Idaho would also spread parasites. Why should we subject our game animals, and possibly our domestic animals to such danger?
If wolves are planted in YNP and in Idaho, I believe the wolves will undoubtedly play a role in the epizootiology and epidemiology of rabies. The wolf has played an important role, or perhaps a major role, as a source of rabies for humans in Russia, Asia, and the former USSR. From 1976 to 1980 a wolf bite was the cause of rabies in 3.5% of human cases in the Uzbek, Kazakh, and Georgian SSRs and in several areas of the RSFSR. Thirty cases of wolf rabies and 36 attacks on humans by wolves were registered in 1975 – 1978 only in the European area of the RSFSR. In the Ukraine, wolf rabies constituted .8% of all cases of rabies in wildlife in 1964 to 1978. The incidence of wolf rabies increased six fold between 1977 and 1979. The epizootic significance of the wolf has been shown in the Siberian part of the former USSR. Between 1950 and 1977 a total of 8.7% of rabies cases in the Eastern Baikal region were caused by wolf bites. In the Aktyubinsk Region of Kazakhstan, of 54 wolves examined from 1972 to 1978, 17 or 31.5% tested positive for rabies. During this period, 50 people were attacked by wolves and 33 suffered bites by rabid wolves. This shows that healthy wolves also attack and bite humans. Recent Russian research states that as the numbers of hybrid wolves increases, the likelihood of a healthy hybrid wolf attacking humans also increase. Russian wildlife specialists state that when there is no hunting of wolves, the possibility of wolves attacking humans also increases, as the wolves lose their fear of humans.
Wolves not only have and carry rabies, but also have carried foot and mouth disease and anthrax. Wolves in Russia are reported to carry over 50 types of worms and parasites, including echinococcus, cysticercus and the trichinellidae family.
Prior to planting wolves in YNP and Idaho, I respectfully request a detailed study be made on the potential impact wolves will have in regard to carry, harboring and spreading of diseases.
Read More @ http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/200...eintroduction/
Dr. Valerius Geist’s Response to the Claims
That Hydatid Disease Spread by Wolves Does
Not Represent a Significant Threat to Humans
The Wildlife Disease Cover-Up That May Put You
and Your Family at Risk
IDFG “White Paper” Response to Concerns About
Wolves Introducing New Strain of Hydatid Disease
http://rliv.com/wolf/OutdoorsmanJan2010.pdf
“Wolf Worms” And Other Wolf-Born Diseases
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/201...born-diseases/
And you want to talk diseases? Scare all the soccer moms out there? Push the same type of rhetoric as the PETA folks? Nice. But I would suggest doing a little research on it first. You want to talk Echinoccus granulosus or multilocularis? Occurance of E. granulosus(the one wolves tend to carry) is 1 in a million. Even where its considered endemic(northern AK), its 1 per 100,000. And funny where it has been seen in the lower 48, its most common(if you want to call it common) in California, Arizona, NM. You think they were drop shipping MV wolves there too? Or is it possible there are greater risk factors than wolves. See, rhetoric. ANY place anyone ever had sheep, you could have this. Blaming wolves and the gubmint is a waste of time.
Coyotes carry multilocularis, which causes alveolar(lung) cysts. I don't hear anyone calling for extermination there.
And since its such a huge scary issue, why do I see all these successful hunters and trappers in BC and AB giving great big hugs to their wolves for their hero shots. No gloves, no masks, no protection from this horrific affliction. Don't spew that garbage. You had people scared to go pick huckleberries last summer, afraid they are going to pick up Echinococcus.
I'm glad you brought the disease issue up MTT as I have much information on the subject and of course just itching to share "all" of it with you. Now don't try to stop me, I just know you are half out of your mind with anticipation.
USFWS Basically Ignored Concerns About Disease From Wolves Before Reintroduction
1. Diseases, Worms, and Parasites. I was surprised that the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) did not make a detailed study on the impact issue of diseases, worms, and parasites (page 9). I believe an EIS is not complete without a detailed study covering the diseases, worms and parasites that wolves would carry, harbor, and spread around in YNP (Yellowstone National Park) and in Idaho. The study should cover the potential negative impact of these diseases on wild and domestic animals, and on humans. I believe the potential negative impact of the diseases is a valid reason not to reintroduce wolves into YNP and to Idaho.
Countless articles about the diseases, worms and parasites carried, harbored, and spread around by wide ranging wolves have been published in a magazine sponsored by the former Soviet Ministry of Agriculture. For example, a Soviet biologist reported that gray wolves are carriers of a number of types of worms and parasites which are dangerous for animals and for humans. According to this biologist, the main one is cestoda. Over approximately a ten year period, the Soviets conducted a controlled study on the subject. They made the following observations. When and where wolves were almost eliminated in a given research area, (where almost all wolves were killed by each spring and new wolves moved into the controlled area only in the fall) infections of taenia hydatiqena in moose and boar did not occur in more than 30 to 35% of the animals. The rate of infections were 3 to 5 examples in each animal. When and where wolves were not killed in the controlled areas in the spring, and where there were 1 or 2 litters of wolf cubs, the infections in moose and boar of taenia hydatiqena reached 100% and up to 30 to 40 examples of infection (infestation) were in each moose and boar. Each year the Soviets studied 20 moose and 50 boar. The research was documented and proved that even in the presence of foxes, raccoons and domestic dogs, ONLY THE WOLF was the basic source of the infections in the moose and boar. Examinations of 9 wolves showed that each one was infected with taenia hydatiqena with an intensity of 5 to 127 examples. This confirmed the Soviet conclusions. The damage done by taenia hydatiqena to cloven footed game animals is documented by Soviet veterinarians. My concern is that if gray wolves in the former USSR carried and spread to game animals dangerous parasites, then there must be danger that gray wolves in YNP and in Idaho would also spread parasites. Why should we subject our game animals, and possibly our domestic animals to such danger?
If wolves are planted in YNP and in Idaho, I believe the wolves will undoubtedly play a role in the epizootiology and epidemiology of rabies. The wolf has played an important role, or perhaps a major role, as a source of rabies for humans in Russia, Asia, and the former USSR. From 1976 to 1980 a wolf bite was the cause of rabies in 3.5% of human cases in the Uzbek, Kazakh, and Georgian SSRs and in several areas of the RSFSR. Thirty cases of wolf rabies and 36 attacks on humans by wolves were registered in 1975 – 1978 only in the European area of the RSFSR. In the Ukraine, wolf rabies constituted .8% of all cases of rabies in wildlife in 1964 to 1978. The incidence of wolf rabies increased six fold between 1977 and 1979. The epizootic significance of the wolf has been shown in the Siberian part of the former USSR. Between 1950 and 1977 a total of 8.7% of rabies cases in the Eastern Baikal region were caused by wolf bites. In the Aktyubinsk Region of Kazakhstan, of 54 wolves examined from 1972 to 1978, 17 or 31.5% tested positive for rabies. During this period, 50 people were attacked by wolves and 33 suffered bites by rabid wolves. This shows that healthy wolves also attack and bite humans. Recent Russian research states that as the numbers of hybrid wolves increases, the likelihood of a healthy hybrid wolf attacking humans also increase. Russian wildlife specialists state that when there is no hunting of wolves, the possibility of wolves attacking humans also increases, as the wolves lose their fear of humans.
Wolves not only have and carry rabies, but also have carried foot and mouth disease and anthrax. Wolves in Russia are reported to carry over 50 types of worms and parasites, including echinococcus, cysticercus and the trichinellidae family.
Prior to planting wolves in YNP and Idaho, I respectfully request a detailed study be made on the potential impact wolves will have in regard to carry, harboring and spreading of diseases.
Read More @ http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/200...eintroduction/
Dr. Valerius Geist’s Response to the Claims
That Hydatid Disease Spread by Wolves Does
Not Represent a Significant Threat to Humans
The Wildlife Disease Cover-Up That May Put You
and Your Family at Risk
IDFG “White Paper” Response to Concerns About
Wolves Introducing New Strain of Hydatid Disease
http://rliv.com/wolf/OutdoorsmanJan2010.pdf
“Wolf Worms” And Other Wolf-Born Diseases
http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/201...born-diseases/
01-22-2011, 12:06 AM
#70
Spike
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4
It is easy to spot the "pretend hunters" spreading pro wolf propaganda straight from the anti hunting web sites. With the facts in that wolves have indeed wiped out 75% of the Yellowstone Elk it is clear the fairy tale misinformation that wolves some how balance nature has been exposed as a fraud. MoreMules has done an excellent job informing everyone. The truth of the matter is from the beginning this was a con job to close down hunting forever. Each of the 3 western state agreed to 150 wolves. Now it is estimated that Idaho alone has 1500 wolves killing 23 elk a year per wolf. 10 times the agreed amount of wolves. The anti hunters just keep brainwashing the city people to keep the money flowing sue the government to protect the wolves. Hunting is not going to control these huge numbers of wolves as they lay waste to country side. For the first time in 40 years hunting I have been in spots that you can only call barren wasteland all due to the wolves. The hunters need to quickly get informed up to speed and demand these wolves be forever taking off the Endangered species act otherwise the wolves will spread to all 48 lower states and hunting will be a distance memory.
