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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He followed that up with more information about the dangers.

As to the pathogenicity of Echinococcus granulosus: Yes, I noticed that Foayt, leaning on Raup’s research in Alaska, toned down the dangers from this northern form. My understanding based on what we learned from an old, experienced parasitologist at the University of British Columbia is that it’s nothing to fool around with. It’s serious! In my career as a biologist in touch with the north, I have heard nothing else. I have not, however, done a recent literature search. Foayte’s assessment may be on even though it conflicts with mine. Either way, getting an Echinococcus cyst of any kind is no laughing matter as it can grow not only on the liver or the lungs, but also in the brain. And then it’s fatal.

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

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

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

Things I am looking for, but not limited to.

•    Gear: Clothes, utility tools, ATV’s…
•    Favorite weapons: guns, bows, sticks, stones…
•    Best Duck Blind or Hide…
•    You, family or friends dressed for the hunt…
•    Where you hunt

All I need is a digital picture in any PC compatible format and a description of the picture.  You can make the description as long or short as you would like.  If there is a story behind the picture we would love to hear about it.

Send Pictures to:

Todd Krater
U.S. Hunting Today
Managing Editor
todd@ushuntingtoday.com

Note: If you want a picture posted and do not have a digital copy I would be willing to scan it for you.  Please contact me for details.

US Hunting Today reserves the right to refuse any picture for any reason as well as edit it where appropriate.

In an article in the Connecticut Post, from the animal lovers and protectors we can read all the same usual unsubstantiated horse manure about why hunting is not the answer to the problem – deer don’t cause Lyme disease, hunting deer causes the reproductive rate to increase resulting in even more deer, yada, yada, yada.

But this one person, Debbie Lake, a resident of Fairfield said this about hunters:

[hunters] “are going to wind up killing dogs or kids, or anything,”

I would comfortably say that this is a classic example of fear mongering. But what is just as maddening is that the reporter never once questions any of these bold statements, especially one that accuses hunters as being some kind of domestic terrorist, caring for nothing but a kill and willing to take out dogs, kids or “anything”, whatever that is supposed to mean.

This year’s event will be held at the University of Maine at Fort Kent and as last year, Skinny Moose Media, in conjunction with U.S. Hunting Today and Maine Hunting Today, will live-stream the video and audio of the event.

Tom Remington, Vice President of Skinny Moose Media, LLC, author of the Black Bear Blog and Managing Editor of U.S. Hunting Today and Maine Hunting Today, will be on hand at the show to conduct interviews and do the filming of the event. He will have his long time friend and Chief Photographer for Skinny Moose Media, Milt Inman with him to assist and grab tons of candid shots throughout the day and evening.

Drawing of names will commence at 6 p.m. It is hoped that things will be set up and video streaming by 4 p.m. that same day. Once the drawing begins, there are no planned interruptions to the streaming.

Last year’s event was held at the Kittery Trading Post in Kittery, Maine and there were over 6,000 who logged onto to the Black Bear Blog to watch and listen to names being drawn.

Obviously if you can find your way clear to make the trip to Fort Kent and the University of Maine, it will prove to be a great time. It is the intention of Skinny Moose Media to provide a service to the hunters in Maine and beyond who can’t be there in person but would like to watch.

On the day of the Maine Moose Lottery drawing, those wishing to view the event can log onto the Black Bear Blog. Immediately on the home page will be a link to follow that will take you directly to the video player and live streaming.

If all goes as planned, the “live chat” function of the video player will be open for hunters to interact among themselves or to ask Tom questions, providing he isn’t too busy. You will not need to register to use the chat function or to view the audio.

For those interested, Skinny Moose Media still has some advertising space available on the video player page for that event. This proves to be one of the most highly visible pages during this event. If you are interested, please contact Skinny Moose Media.

This year’s broadcast is being sponsored by the Allagash Sporting Camps in Allagash, Maine.

Tom Remington

In Connecticut, some areas are battling Lyme disease brought on by too many deer that carry the tick that causes the disease. In both these cases, the solution seems to be to reduce the deer population in order to accomplish one or both, of two tasks.

Dr. Emile DeVito, a conservation ecologist and Manager of Science and Stewardship for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, has an article in the New York Times about similar forest destruction problems in New York and New Jersey by deer. He offers solutions to the problem, one of which being a drastic reduction of the deer population and utilizing the efforts of hunters.

DeVito says that there are too many deer to count and nothing left of plants to survey, so any money to study and count would be a waste. He calls for population numbers to be dropped to around 5 deer per square mile, claiming this number is necessary in order to allow for the forests to regenerate.

These are very low numbers when you begin presenting them to deer biologists, depending on region and carrying capacities, and you’re sure to get some heated responses from deer hunters, as we have witnessed in Pennsylvania.

Last week I wrote an article about how it appeared that Pennsylvania was tearing down its deer herd in order to build it back up again. In that article, I asked the following question.

I don’t have all the details obviously but if the 10-year effort was to reduce the deer population to 15 per square mile, a number that many wildlife biologists would consider reasonable, in order to regrow the forest and sustain a healthier deer population, why are they looking to rebuild it?

Reader Willard responded to my question about why the state would first advocate for knocking deer population numbers down to around 15 per square mile, only to bump them back up to 20 per square mile once the forests have regenerated.

…..he means that once the habitat has recovered from the severe over browsing that it should then be capable of supporting a larger number of deer than 15 per square mile.

According to DeVito’s article, it sounds as though reader Willard is exactly right.

All nonprofit environmental groups, government agencies, sportsman clubs, farmers, professional foresters and community groups need to work together to reduce the regional deer population to a biodiversity-based carrying capacity, which must initially be significantly lower than 10 deer per square mile, but could be boosted to about 20 per square mile when the forest is once again filled with tree seedlings and saplings, a dense shrub layer, and a forest floor carpeted with wildflowers!

This sounds as though it could be a great opportunity for hunters and hunting clubs, to work more closely with farmers, landowners, community and state governments to provide more hunting opportunities now and into the future to help restore damaged forests and to help stop the spread of diseases such as Lyme.

But here’s the million dollar question. Mr. DeVito advocates for the use of hunting in places where feasible to achieve the reduction of the deer population. Being that he is a member of the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, which basically buys up land to preserve and limits it to mostly hiking and bird watching, would the NJCF advocate for the use of hunting on their “preserves” when certain game species become too abundant?

Tom Remington

FORT THOMAS – Fort Thomas City Council is still not sure exactly what the city’s deer hunt this year will be like.

At a meeting Monday, May 19, the council again discussed possible changes to the archery ordinance that was passed last December.

The council members agreed that eligible properties for discharging an arrow must be at least three acres and that the setback on both sides between the shooter and a neighboring property should be raised from 50 to 100 feet.

Everyone also agreed that the hunting should be limited from Nov. 1 to Nov. 21 and Jan. 1 until the end of the hunting season, which was Jan. 21 last year. This year’s end date is not yet determined.

The hunt will also be limited to the hours of 6 a.m. to noon.

“We have had people say they don’t feel safe walking, so if we limited the time, people will know when hunting is not going on,” said City Administrator Donald Martin.

Council also discussed posting a map of the eligible properties, which Martin said for the most part are on the outskirts of the city, on the city’s Web site and at the city building.

The council was split on whether it would be best to require property owners who are allowing hunting on their land to register with the city and whether adjoining property owners should be notified.

Martin said he worries that the more requirements like this that the ordinance includes, the less likely people will be to participate, which would make the program not work.

“With the restrictions of the property size, we have solved the biggest safety issues,” said councilman Eric Haas.

Councilwoman Barbara Thompson-Levine said she is in favor of the registration and notification because it adds an extra layer of safety to the ordinance.

Fort Thomas residents Patrick and Kathy Williams, who attended the meeting, said they are scared for children to be around their house, which is surrounded by eligible properties.

Children, Patrick Williams said, don’t know what no trespassing means.

“I grew up in Fort Thomas,” said Kathy Williams. “We used to go from one end of this city to the other through those woods.”

Kathy said she thinks the registration and notification are good ideas to give people more warning of when hunting may be going on.

The original ordinance allowed for hunting on private property with the owners consent from Dec. 27, 2007 to Jan. 21 of this year. Hunters, who weren’t required to report kills, reported 42 deers killed.

No injuries or accidents involving archery were reported during that time.

The council is revisiting the ordinance to give residents, many who spoke out against the hunt, peace of mind to help them feel safe in the city, said councilman Roger Peterman.

The council will continue to discuss the changes at a later meeting, which has not yet been set.

Martin said he expects to have a draft of the amended ordinance sometime in June.

Bentley, a 2-year old Chihuahua owned by Jessica Ganchou of Bethlehem, is luckly to be alive after he was mauled and nearly killed by a coyote earlier this year. (Jim Shannon / RA)

Bentley the longhaired Chihuahua has a second chance at life thanks to a 9-volt battery, a loving owner and two skilled veterinarians who put him back together after he was attacked by a coyote.

The lap dog with the golden coat and diminutive body was romping behind his owner’s Bethlehem house at dusk Jan. 19 when a coyote snatched him. The coyote’s teeth pierced the dog’s flesh and clamped down as it headed for the edge of the yard.

Technology intervened. Bentley, who was wearing a battery-powered collar tuned to an electric fence in the yard, got an electrical shock as the coyote stepped over the metal wire. The charge zapped the coyote, which dropped Bentley and skulked away.

The little dog was lucky. Wildlife experts and veterinarians across Connecticut say the number of coyote attacks on pets, particularly small dogs like Bentley that appear as prey, has increased in recent years. Suburban sprawl is considered the biggest factor; homes built near hills and streams are in natural coyote habitat. Few disagree coyotes, which resemble small German shepherds, have become more aggressive, and are losing their innate fear of humans, as evidenced by the 2006 attack on two Washington, Conn., residents.

“The bottom line is coyotes are expanding into populated areas and perhaps into areas where pet owners are totally unsuspecting,” said Chris Vann, a wildlife biologist with the state Department of Environmental Protection. “They will protect their territories. If it can happen in the backyards of West Hartford and East Hartford, more populated areas, it can really happen anywhere.”

BY CHRIS GARDNER | REPUBLICAN-AMERICAN

Their temporary house guest entered through their front door which was propped open at their home in the Smith Plan behind Pizza Hut along Route 22. No one was in the house at the time.

Dena was at a meeting at Blairsville High School when her husband called to tell her to come home.

“My husband was on the front porch. It ran right past my husband,” she said. “He saw it, but it wasn’t registering. It was unbelievable.”

The deer, which the Wendels believe was a yearling, trotted through the family’s kitchen, computer room and laundry room. Aside from some knocked-over water jugs, displaced dog dishes, a hole or two in the pond liner and some stray deer hairs, nothing was damaged.

“Other than making a mess, we were really lucky,” Dena said. “We have a huge 125-gallon fish tank when you first walk in the door. He ran right past that. Thank God.”

A group of neighbors came over to help figure out how to get the deer out of the house. They pounded on walls of the house to scare it into the garage, which was connected to the laundry room. Eventually, the deer made it to the garage and exited the house.

Dena estimated the deer spent about 15 minutes in her home, which is in an area the family does not consider a rural area.

“When I called my insurance agent, I’ve never seen him speechless,” Dena said. “I was talking to him and he was like, ‘Are you kidding?’”

In addition to avoiding major damage, the Wendels also avoided having a messier catastrophe on their hands – they share the house with three dogs. But Carl locked the dogs up outside the sliding glass door where they watched. The dogs were jumping on the door, wanting their own piece of the action.

“I was thinking, please don’t let them break that door,” she said. “I’ll have three dogs and a deer chasing each other around the house – I’m moving into a hotel.”

Thanks to the actions of some hooligans, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho are considering enacting laws and seasons on the gathering of shed antlers from deer and elk.

According to published reports, wildlife officials from those states have seen an increase in activity from individuals who harass deer and elk in efforts to get them to shed their antlers prematurely. For example, in April, Nevada game officials apprehended a man who used an ATV to chase mule deer through sagebrush in attempts to get them to drop their antlers.

Montana has been dealing with this problem for several years, and has already implemented closed seasons on shed hunting in certain parts of its elk range. Fines for harassing deer and elk in that state can range up to $500 per violation.

Other reports include violations in Idaho where shed hunters were using off-road motorcycle to chase animals.

A date-specific shed-hunting season? Now I think I’ve heard it all.
–Dan Schmidt, Editor Deer and Deer Hunting

CHARLES CITY — The county Board of Supervisors voted 2-1 last night to prohibit deer hunting with high-powered rifles, drawing anger and raised voices from some in the audience.

“We’re going to get you out next term,” said Bill Johnson, addressing the board members.

Also last night, the three-member board unanimously adopted a $22.4 million county budget for fiscal 2009, which begins July 1. That is a nearly 4 percent decrease from the spending plan for the current fiscal year.

The county’s real estate tax rate is being raised by 7 cents to 82 cents per $100 of assessed value.

More than 100 people packed the auditorium at the Government and School Board Administration Building during last night’s public hearing on the rifle issue.

About 15 people spoke, with some in favor of hunting deer with high-powered rifles and others expressing safety concerns.

Several of those in favor suggested it was their right to hunt deer with rifles, or that the current practice of shooting from tree stands was relatively safe. A National Rifle Association representative said deer hunting was essential to controlling the deer population.

Vince Brackett said hunting with rifles is a tradition and it claims far fewer lives than boating in Virginia. “Boating’s far more dangerous,” he said.

Opponents of rifle hunting expressed concerns about stray bullets. One suggested that some hunters would be unable to resist shooting a deer even if they were on the ground and not in a tree stand.

Elbert Parker held a piece of inch-thick wood above his head to demonstrate the ease with which a bullet could go through someone’s wall.

“Your children can be shot dead looking at TV in your house,” he said, prompting an argument among him and members of the crowd until board chairman Gilbert A. Smith tapped on a table to quiet them.

Supervisors had three possible voting options.

The first two would have allowed people to continue hunting deer with high-powered rifles during general firearms season as long as they fired from at least 10 feet off the ground. Both added additional restrictions.

Supervisors Sherri M. Bowman and Timothy W. Cotman voted for the third option, the amendment that prohibits all deer hunting with high-powered rifles. Smith voted against it.

Last night’s vote reversed a decision made less than three years ago to allow deer hunting with rifles.

For that vote in 2005, Smith and then-supervisor Michael L. Holmes voted in favor, and Cotman against.

But Bowman unseated Holmes in this past November’s election, running on a platform that, in part, sought to rescind the use of rifles for deer hunting.

Bowman said after the board meeting that most of the residents who had talked to her about the issue had expressed safety concerns.

“It’s been trying,” she said. “You try to do what’s best and what’s fair.”

By REED WILLIAMS

TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER