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.

•    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.

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

Click this link.

To date, Tennessee has reported 246 bear taken with 17 days left in the season. The later part of the season into December allows dogs for bear hunting. Officials predict as many as 400 bears could be harvested if the weather doesn’t get too cold too quickly. That would be a record.

Meanwhile Pennsylvania officials are reporting a bumper crop of bears and they too think that if the weather holds for the next two days, as many as 3,500 bears could be taken. Last year 2,360 bears were taken and the weather was not good on opening day.

Tom Remington

“I’ve been in the woods for over a month now and I can tell you there are at least 100 does for every buck!” This is a comment I received one day when attempting to communicate with fellow hunters about buck to doe ratios and the management plans Maine has in monitoring and manipulating the whitetail deer populations.

Whether that statement is true or not is not really up to me to decide but when I contacted a wildlife expert, I was told that in Maine, having a buck to doe ratio of 1:100 was nearly biologically impossible unless it was intentionally skewed.

I’m sure most of you at one time or another participated in the old “count the jelly beans” contest. This is where someone fills a glass jug with jelly beans and then formulates a contest in which the one who can guess closest the number of beans in the jar wins a prize.

In this scenario, you can see the beans through the glass but because it is three dimensional and the beans are stacked from all sides, one has to envision how many groupings of a selected number exist in the jar and then do the math.

Have you ever attended a concert or any kind of large gathering of people and been asked to estimate how many people in attendance? You might apply the same principle as the jelly beans – determine the size of say 50 people and see how many chunks of 50 people there are and once again do the math.

I have friends who are wildlife biologists. Often they volunteer to go on bird counts in Mexico during migration. I’m no expert on bird counting but I recall one of them briefly describing the process. The birds are flying in mass in the same direction. At certain places, the birds enter areas where the air rises. The birds get into these rises until they reach a certain height and then fly away headed for their final migratory destination.

The biologists make a determination of how many birds can fill up this “elevator” of updrafts. Each counter picks out one bird as it enters the elevator, watches it until it reaches the top and exits. At this time the counter moves eyes back to the bottom of the elevator, picks another bird and counts “one”.

This entire process gives biologists a “count” of the number of that species of bird. I have no hard data but it might be plausible to guess the counting would be off by several thousand but when counting millions of birds, it is probably within tolerance.

In all of these cases I’ve mentioned, someone or group of people are attempting to count objects they can see, not necessarily individually but in groups, a lot of groups in some cases. So, how do we count species not in groups, not confined to small areas but spread out over huge areas of land and forests? Sometimes in the open, sometimes in dense forest?

There are several ways and not everyone uses the same methods and all produce varying degrees of accuracy. How accurate should it be?

If there are an estimated 1,000,000,000 sparrows, I’m not so sure that being real accurate on numbers is that important. On the other hand, if there is an estimated 100 of a particular “protected” species, it would seem imperative that we know exactly how many exist and where.

I can’t and won’t get into the exact methods used to count wildlife, but let me give a few examples to show the varying ways and degrees of effort put forth in determining herd counts in some states.

Let’s start first with whitetail deer in Maine. Maine has deer that live in areas throughout the entire state. Deer densities in southern Maine far exceed those in northern Maine. How do we know that? Biologists have formulated equations that by inputting data, comparing it to many years of previous data, they come up with an answer. Examples of data used would include: weather, habitat, predation, fawn survival rates, disease, hunter harvest and hunting pressure, open land, among others. The use of aerial surveys is also used but not on a regular, extensive basis. (For those interested in finding out more about how Maine manages and counts its deer herd, visit the website of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife.)

Another state that is having a war over deer management is Pennsylvania. A few years back, biologists and state agencies announced that there were too many deer and as a result was destroying the habitat and creating a serious ecological imbalance. Pennsylvania began a program to reduce the deer population. Some don’t agree with the approach. The question for us today is how do they know how many deer they had and how many they have now?

The state of Pennsylvania Fish and Game offers a Deer Management Plan and an update to that that addresses the new plan of herd reduction.

From an examination of the Deer Management Plan and assuming it is being followed, we can see that Pennsylvania utilizes similar methods as Maine in counting their deer. Obviously, due to different geography and climate, certain methods are different.

I think Maine has an excellent system of data collection and utilization that gives most biologists a healthy degree of confidence in the outcome. The reality is it is still educated guessing but the key is increasing the level of confidence. When hunters discover that their biologists are producing accurate results, this level of confidence in the fish and game grows.

Gathering this information and determining how many deer live in states like Maine and Pennsylvania is good and serves not only to provide a professional means to manage the species but in so doing solves many social problems as well, i.e. keeping hunters and wildlife viewers satisfied, maintaining healthy forests, reducing human/deer encounters/accidents, etc.

But in both Maine and Pennsylvania, the whitetail deer is, for all intent and purposes, plentiful. Most people’s concerns about them involve avoiding running into them with their cars or being able to spot one occasionally in the field.

This is not the case for other species in other states. Let’s head west to Idaho. Idaho is home to mule deer, whitetail deer, elk and moose. It is also home to the gray wolf, an endangered and protected species that has created emotional conflict, to say the least.

The wolf was once native to Idaho and surrounding regions until it was nearly exterminated many years ago. The wolf had been found in northern areas of the state, having migrated down from Canada. But in 1993 and 1994, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unloaded imported wolves into the forests of Idaho as an “experimental” population. Since that time, the wolf there has been relabeled endangered and is protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Last year the USFWS removed the wolf from protection of the ESA and immediately lawsuits were filed by no fewer than 11 environmental, animal rights and anti-hunting groups to stop the process. A judge in Montana agreed and ruled in favor of a temporary injunction to place the wolf back under federal protection.

Since that time the feds have withdrawn their original proposal to delist and are now in the process of putting forth a new delisting proposal in hopes of getting this done by the first of next year. Once again, most of the same pro wolf groups have filed suit to stop the process until the new administration (Obama’s) has taken over.

Within Idaho there are varying degrees of emotions – satisfaction, dissatisfaction, anger and happiness – over the wolf issue. Ranchers have lost livestock due to wolf predation and hunters, along with some non-hunters, are angry that the wolf is killing more elk, deer and moose. To what extent this “decimation” of elk and deer is taking place, we don’t really know or perhaps we don’t know who to believe or what is accurate.

So, we should then conclude with the amount of controversy over the wolf, the assumed destruction of elk and deer herds, the loss of ranchers’ livestock and the reduced production due to the presence of wolves, combined with the mere number of Idaho citizens directly and indirectly affected by the wolf, that Idaho must have one of the best systems in place in the country to monitor wolf, elk, deer, moose, sheep and every other kind of wildlife populations. We mustn’t forget the mere millions of dollars spent on wolf reintroduction, managing the animal once it was placed there and the countless lawsuits past, present and future. How can lawsuits be determined fairly unless Idaho’s population monitoring isn’t flawless? And how can we administer the Endangered Species Act with faulty information?

I figured then that I would see if I could find out about how Idaho Department of Fish and Game monitors its animals.

I sent an email to Brad Compton, Idaho’s big game manager, and asked him if he could explain or provide me with information that specifically explained the processes IDFG uses to count and monitor its mule deer, whitetail deer, moose, elk and wolves. This is the complete response I got.

Tom,

Idaho is currently using “Aerial Survey” to estimate mule deer, elk, moose, and bighorn sheep populations. Information on the technique is available at:

http://www.cnrhome.uidaho.edu/fishwild/Garton/tools

I couldn’t really find out anything from this link except to be able to get a download of the computer software I presume IDFG uses to tabulate the results of the endless data they must collect.

I began asking around from people in that area who have had experience with aerial surveys, wildlife management, etc. When I asked one gentleman about this response from Brad Compton, this is part of what was said.

His (Ed Garton) computer models were used to estimate deer and elk populations and harvests in the Central Idaho Wolf Recovery area in the 1993 Wolf Recovery EIS and his average overall estimate for the 20,000+ square miles exceeded known deer and elk populations in the three highest producing units in that area by more than 600%.

These were the figures presented to Congress and the general public to justify introducing Canadian wolves into Idaho.

You know what they say about computers and the programs designed to run on them? Garbage in, garbage out. If it was true that deer and elk populations were inflated by 600%, was this the fault of the computer program, the information used in the program or a combination of both?

It didn’t take long before I came to the conclusion that Idaho relies very heavily on aerial surveys to estimate game populations. I also began finding out that aerial surveys alone may not be very accurate and can lead to some serious problems involving game management.

Articles archived in the Lewiston Tribune from 1997 and 1998 offer a disturbing revelation. In the Clearwater Region it was feared that elk took a hard hit from the deep snows of 1996-97. The then regional manager said nothing they had found indicated anything out of the “normal” range.

“There’s no doubt we had some losses,” Crenshaw said, “but we haven’t seen anything to suggest it’s outside the normal range.”
About 5 to 10 percent of the elk herd dies off during the winter most years, Crenshaw said, adding this year’s losses might be pushing that upper end of the range.

He further went on to explain that he didn’t predict that there would be any changes to the number of elk permits to be issued for hunting in the coming fall. That was in May.

In December of that same year, 1997, hunters began complaining that the Clearwater Region didn’t have any elk in it. Also from the Lewiston Tribune:

Some Clearwater Region hunters have complained about finding fewer elk this fall, particularly in units around Dworshak Reservoir. Hunter success also was off in that region. Aerial and ground surveys of elk in northern units of the Clearwater Region last spring showed no signs of unusual winter kill.

Two months later in Feb. 2008, the Tribune reported that IDFG was reporting elk numbers in the Clearwater Region had dropped drastically since 1994 and blamed it on the severe winter of 1996-97. The total number of elk had been cut in half. These is the kinds of discrepancies that drive sportsmen nuts.

Aside from the computer software link Mr. Compton gave me, I found that Idaho Fish and Game website provides a Mule Deer Management Plan. Hoping to find more precise methods used to count deer and elk, I really only found a brief reference to something called, “sightability model”.

Because not all animals are observed during aerial surveys (Caughley 1974), IDFG developed a “sightability model” that corrects for those deer not observed (Unsworth et. al. 1994). Beginning in the mid-1990s, annual aerial surveys, using the “sightability model,” were conducted on 28 discrete winter ranges across southern Idaho. These winter range surveys provided reliable information on population composition, but were inadequate for determining overall abundance. Additionally, limiting monitoring to these winter ranges failed to detect potential changes occurring on the many smaller or peripheral winter ranges throughout Idaho.(I provided the hyperlink)

In theory, what this “sightability model” does is correct for what animals, and in this cited case, elk, are not seen in an aerial survey. This sightability model may not be accurate but will account to some degree on the number of elk counted. The model has to take into consideration as many factors that will effect the habits of the elk due to weather, ground conditions, time of year, terrain, habitat, etc. I would suppose one could say that the model is only as good as the data that gets dumped into it, provided of course that the basic model is sound.

I have communicated quite extensively with one man who has years of experience in aerial surveys and understands them well. He also shared thoughts with me about “sightability models”.

Instead of counting only under ideal conditions – or skipping the count that year if such conditions did not exist – IDFG Research Biologists spent years designing and re-designing this so-called “sightability” model in which the biologist enters a combination of data including precipitation, cloud cover, type of vegetation, snow cover, etc. to estimate the percentage of animals that exist versus those that were observed. In my experience almost every version of such a sightability model exaggerates the number of bucks and bulls or fawns and calves, and does nothing to improve the inability of a desk-bound biologist to spot and count wild animals – especially under less-than-ideal conditions. In my opinion, aerial counting under less than ideal conditions is a waste of time and sportsmen’s license money. Yet in many, but not all, areas it is possible to achieve up to 95% accuracy under the proper ideal count conditions. Accurate counts conducted every few years combined with accurate hunter harvest reports and other data provides far more accuracy than IDFG’s “sightability” surveys.

In the Idaho Mule Deer Management Plan, it states that in the future the department needs to develop a monitoring plan that uses less aerial surveys. This would seem to run contradictory to the statement made above by one experienced aerial surveyor.

I always hear from hunters disgruntled with the management efforts of fish and game biologists. The degree of distrust between hunter and biologist varies greatly from state to state and I believe this to be directly proportional to the trust factor or level of confidence I spoke of earlier. But we cannot disregard the evidence presented to us by those on the ground.

Many biologists that I have spoken with tell me that they put a lot of credibility in what the experienced hunters, guides, trappers, etc. are telling them they are seeing. After all, they are often the only eyes and ears on the ground in the woods and fields. To disregard this information would be foolhardy.

I also came across a person who has become part of a group of sportsmen who have decided to take a little game management into their own hands. About 12 years ago, a group of sportsmen and pilots began doing their own aerial surveys utilizing trained surveyors. This happened due to continued frustration on the part of the sportsmen that IDFG was attempting to do their own surveys with untrained personnel and coming up with data on herd populations that didn’t satisfy them from what they were observing on the ground. As one member of this group told me, “Around here we fly year around and spot what little game is left. You don’t just do it for a couple weeks in the year and then go back to your computer.”

The same gentleman told me that their frustration level grew when IDFG was reporting there were 5,000 elk in the zones they fly on a regular bases. This group had recorded their own count of 2,000 elk in two zones. They finally convinced IDFG to fly these two wildlife units and they counted 1,900 elk.

What was pointed out to me also was that with this effort of doing aerial surveys of their own, they have been able to convince IDFG to reduce elk tags in order to get the population of elk back up and they have since seen marked improvement. This is a direct result of accurate population monitoring and being able to adjust management tactics to meet known needs.

I digress to my original question about how important it is to have accurate information especially in regards to Idaho and their controversial problems with wolves and claims by sportsmen that the wolves are killing off all the deer and elk.

I have no way of really knowing exactly everything IDFG does to monitor their herds but I’ve presented some examples that certainly seem to prove that what is getting reported isn’t matching what’s on the ground.

Can we then have much confidence that data being presented is accurate? And if that confidence is low, how can a court rightfully pass judgment on the wolf and directly affect the lives of Idaho’s citizens based on guess work?

Wouldn’t it be historic if one of these judges, instead of overstepping their legal bounds and disregarding science in passing judgment, would go the other way and order the federal government and all those who filed the lawsuits to pony up the money and have a complete audit done of Idaho’s elk, deer, moose, sheep and wolf populations. Would we then not have answered the real questions and faced the issue head on?

Better yet, why not require the Department of Interior i.e. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with anyone proposing a listing of any species, first spend the money to do a complete audit before any consideration can be given for listing?

Tom Remington

In essence, USP claims that PGC did not use scientific evidence in the issuing of antlerless deer permits resulting in drastic reductions in deer numbers. They want this to stop until such time that PGC can prove they are following the law in issuing the permits.

Game Commission Executive Director Carl Roe says he welcomes the opportunity to explain the procedures they use.

‘We look forward to ?the opportunity to have our many expert witnesses expound on the scientific basis and soundness of our management plan,” Roe said. ”At the end of the trial, we are confident that this debate over the scientific validity will be resolved once and for all.”

The deer management plan PGC has implemented has been a controversy since day one with no real end in sight. Some see the plan as a good thing while others complain of too few deer. With the onset of another lawsuit, others are complaining that USP are just wasting the PGC’s money, which is mostly collected from license fees, fearing it will result in increased fees.

It will probably be months before the case will actually make it to the courts.

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

Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Calgary in Alberta, is a renowned expert in wildlife management and conservation practices. In addition to teaching, writing about, and lecturing on the subjects, Dr. Geist has performed years of in-the-field research on big game species. He has authored 16 books, seven documentary films and contributed 40 entries to various encyclopedias.

With permission from Dr. Geist, I would like to publish the original article in its entirety.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The management of reintroduced wolves is not merely a matter of wildlife management but a clash of deeply held values. It could be called a rural versus urban clash in which some ecologically based philosophies, if one can call them such, are fostered on the country at large by urban based nature “protectors.”

They proclaim two myths as self evident or as scientific “truths” to the general public: that predators in general and wolves in particular are an “ecological good” no matter how many; and that “wilderness” is the “natural” pre-Columbian state of North America, then presided over by noble natives who selflessly maintained its ecological integrity which ecologically insensitive Europeans subsequently destroyed. In addition, they operate on the assumption that wildlife is a free gift of Nature, a gift of God, and not a resource painfully restored by human hand over the last 80 years in North America.

The wildlife we currently enjoy is not wildlife that was left over from the past, but wildlife restored by a continental system of wildlife conservation that arose after its near destruction a century ago. It is one of the great cultural achievements of North Americans in the 20th Century, the greatest environmental success story of that century, and a highly successful system of sustained development of a natural resource.

Since wildlife was financed on a “user pays” basis, the restoration fell on the fraction of North Americans who hunt. The rest of society got a free ride in their enjoyment of wildlife as an important component of the high quality of life we enjoy.

Few North Americans are aware of the excellence of the wildlife conservation system developed here by the dedicated public-spirited efforts of three generations of their ancestors. Unfortunately, this ignorance extends to professional wildlife biologists as well. Americans are, after all, not keen on history, following Henry Ford in considering it more or less bunk.

I cannot go into great detail here concerning why predators in low abundance are a benefit to wildlife populations, but are also capable of severely depleting such with unfortunate and unexpected consequences. It’s analogous to sugar: a little in the coffee is great but ingested by the pound it becomes a significant health hazard.

Put another way, if someone proclaimed that deer, as predators of plants, eat only the sick and decrepit plants, sparing the vigorous growing ones in order to insure the health and well being of the range, that individual would not be taken too seriously. Moreover wolves, as Siberian immigrants unlike mountain lions or coyotes, are not expected to be co-adapted with North American species and can be incredibly efficient in removing other species.

For instance, wolves that entered Vancouver Island in the early 1970s are spread across the island now. The deer kill by hunters has plummeted from about 25,000 to less than 4,000 today. Deer are found in reasonable abundance only where they live in suburbs and cities juxtaposed to human beings.

Blacktailed and mule deer are notoriously susceptible to pack hunting wolves. It is ironic that wildlife biologists who reported the severe depletion of deer by wolves on Vancouver Island were not considered quite professional by some academic biologists. Ingrained beliefs can be hard to challenge, no matter what the facts.

Now to the wilderness as an argument for letting nature (and wolves) run its course, unimpeded by interfering human hands. The argument is that wolves must be introduced in a hands-off fashion so as to restore aboriginal pre-Columbian wilderness ecosystems.

Current research indicates that pre-Columbian North America was a well settled, quite severely exploited land, with native people practicing highly skilled horticulture. The latter is a development to escape starvation brought on by food shortages in native ecosystems.

Instead of maintaining wilderness, native people manipulated the land to make it yield sustenance, no different from people on other continents. When European diseases devastated native tribes rapidly in the 16’ Century, thus lifting the heavy hand of red man off the land, “wilderness” was the result.

Far from being the natural state of the land, wilderness is an artifact of European colonization. The ecology of North America was not “natural” in pre-Columbian days. Not only because of agriculture and skillful landscape manipulation by fire, but also because native people had all but destroyed the mega fauna in colonizing the continent.

The lesson from this is that we need not be slaves to some pre-Columbian fiction but may do just as pre-Columbian natives did – generate our own land use and conservation practices in which the maintenance of bio-diversity is the only bottom line requirement. Yes it is quite all right to have areas with minimum predation to raise bountiful wildlife for broad public use.

Not less management as wilderness proponents proclaim, but more management is the more desirable state of affairs.

To let predation go unchecked, “letting it be management,” is bound to diminish much more than the game herds that were built up from next to nothing over the past 80 years. It risks our public system of wildlife conservation and the great Public Good that flows from it.

As game herds drop so do license sales and revenue to game departments. The public guardians of wildlife have less and less wherewithal to do their job, and ultimately have no job.

Despite all the controversies about public wildlife management, it is on the whole infinitely superior to private management of wildlife for the marketplace. Superior in conservation achievements and far superior in economic returns or as a creator of wealth or employment.

There is little doubt that with the loss of significant public participation in the harvest of wildlife, most public land will lose its political clientèle and, as sure as the sun will rise, will slide into defacto private ownership. There will be little wolf conservation under private condition, o r cougars, grizzly bears, etc.

Letting predators run down game herds will indirectly weaken the framework of wildlife conservation. Together with other opponents of public wildlife such as game farming and the anti-hunting and animal rights movements, this may succeed in destroying the greatest environmental success of the past century – the return of American wildlife.

It would be replaced by a mixture of European, South African and shooting preserve type wildlife management – if one can call it such.

Posted by Tom Remington

Take for example the state of Idaho. Idaho is home to one of the best run domestic elk industries in the United States, in my opinion. It is well run, clean, disease free and brings a substantial economic contribution to the people of that state as well. Some people don’t like to see elk trapped behind fences even though elk have been domesticated world wide for centuries.

These people who have the problem, in some cases have organized and attempts have been made within the Idaho Legislature to shut down the domestic elk industry. Threats of running a campaign for a ballot initiative looms over the family’s heads who own elk ranches.

One of the tactics used, mostly to scare people, is the threat of disease. Elk can contract several diseases one of which seems to get the most attention, is chronic wasting disease. CWD is similar to mad cow disease but has never been found to be of the same threat to humans. In Idaho, the sale or importation of elk is strictly regulated. Animals are well cared for and tested for disease. Currently there is no live animal test for chronic wasting disease so every elk that is killed on a ranch must be tested for disease. No chronic wasting disease has ever been detected in any elk on any ranches in that state.

In North Dakota, a group calling themselves sportsmen, are in the process of gathering signatures for a citizen’s initiative to end all cervidae ranching in that state. Once again those wanting to shut down the industry spend a substantial amount of time trying to convince the public that disease from these ranches will infect the wild populations.

There is currently legislation being considered in Colorado that would create similar restrictions and a handful of other states have already passed legislation banning the industry in part or in whole.

Truth be known, no one is certain where the disease originated. Some studies suggest the disease is a “natural” occurrence that has been around perhaps since day one and goes through cycles. Some believe it originates on these ranches. Studies have indicated that the disease more easily is spread when animals, such as deer and elk, are congregated in large numbers. It is believed the disease is passed from animal to animal via bodily fluids but recent studies show that may not be the only way. Prions, which carry the disease, has been found in the soil and in some cases it is believed that it has been there a long time. Studies on the disease continue.

What some people don’t quite understand is that nobody seems to know which came first – the disease from inside out or from outside in. Because most all animals trapped behind fences are tested regularly for disease and testing of wild ungulates is spotty at best in some locations, wouldn’t it make sense that the disease would be discovered first on a ranch or a laboratory?

In states like Idaho, the fish and game there are dead set against the elk industry and would like to see it shut down. They too espouse the notion that the domestic elk industry poses a threat to the wild deer, elk and moose populations through the spread of disease.

What if the table is turned? What if the government agencies became the ranchers? What if local, state or federal governments owned elk or deer ranches? Would they then be as concerned about their own animals infecting wild animals on the outside of their fences? Or would their focus turn to protecting their animals inside the fences?

Oregon is another state where groups are trying to put an end to the elk ranching industry. These groups along with state officials lament over the idea that these ranches, like in Idaho and North Dakota, will spread disease. No cases of chronic wasting disease have been discovered in Oregon or Idaho for that matter, whether on a ranch or in the wild.

So, here we have a state claiming that fencing in elk will cause disease and that it can be spread to animals outside the fences. The thought process behind this is that animals can touch nose to nose through the fence or that in some cases, deer will be able to jump fences and get in.

Yet, in Eastern Oregon, near La Grande, the government runs a substantial elk ranch there. What is there concern? Disease getting in or disease getting out? Perhaps they don’t really have any concern at all about disease.

Thanks to reader Mark, he sent me an article he found in the Express-Times out of Pennsylvania. I chuckled when I read the first two paragraphs.

The elk herd at Trexler Game Preserve will get a higher fence meant to keep out company under a proposal that was expected to gain Lehigh County Commissioners’ approval Wednesday night.

Specifically unwanted are white-tailed deer that can transmit the fatal chronic-wasting disease to elk at the county-owned preserve.

The Trexler Game Preserve is owned and operated by the county. Their concerns are that deer FROM THE OUTSIDE, will jump the fence and get in threatening their herd of elk with chronic wasting and other diseases. How bizarre! Yet intelligent enough to consider protection one’s investment.

Are we to conclude that the government can run disease-free preserves and a private rancher can’t while under the regulations of the same governmental agency?

When I spoke with elk ranchers in Idaho about this same scenario, I discovered that many ranchers were quite concerned about their investment in elk being threatened by disease contracted from outside their fences. As I said before, Idaho has no known cases of CWD in the wild or on ranches. Should CWD show up in wild deer, elk and moose, this certainly will raise the fear factor considerably with the elk ranchers.

At the Trexler Game Preserve in Pennsylvania, officials there are putting funds together to raise the fence around the elk herd to 10 feet at an estimated cost of nearly $50,000. This will prevent the deer from jumping the fence but does very little in terms of keeping the animals from touching through the fence – an event that little is known as to how often if any it actually takes place and how real a threat it is.

So, now I have to wonder. In what direction would officials be focusing their concerns about disease if this involved a private game preserve? Would their concerns be about disease getting out or disease getting in?

Tom Remington