More wolves

[rimhunter]

I just took my dogs to the vet some how the wolves came up . The vet told me that a wolve does not get parvo . and if Lark and my vet says its so then thats what im going to think is the truth . Thats all the proof i need

[Outdoor Writer]

I just took my dogs to the vet some how the wolves came up . The vet told me that a wolve does not get parvo . and if Lark and my vet says its so then thats what im going to think is the truth . Thats all the proof i need

 

Then if it's true, the wolf strain that was moved from Canada to YNP must also be part domestic dog, considering the following:

 

*****

Disease suspected in high wolf pup mortality

By MIKE STARK

Of The Gazette Staff

 

A virus that usually shows up in domestic dogs may be at least partly to blame for a sudden drop in Yellowstone National Park's wolf population.

 

Scientists on Thursday began taking a closer look at whether parvovirus is a culprit in the 30 percent decline in wolf numbers last year. It's not unusual for the park's wolf population to fluctuate, but the 2005 numbers raised some eyebrows.

 

"I think it's cause for concern but not alarm," said Doug Smith, Yellowstone's lead wolf biologist.

 

 

 

 

Undeveloped immune systems

 

Many of the wolves that didn't survive the year were pups, a sign that parvo may be a factor because the contagious virus tends to affect young canids without fully developed immune systems.

 

There still hasn't been a confirmed case of parvo among Yellowstone's wolves, but it's a top suspect.

 

"All the symptoms are consistent with a parvovirus outbreak," Smith said.

 

Researchers recently wrapped up the first half of their annual winter survey of Yellowstone's wolves. There are an estimated 118 wolves in the park, compared with 171 a year ago, according to the latest figures.

 

Some of the most dramatic losses were on Yellowstone's Northern Range, where wolf packs live in close proximity and competition is fierce.

 

Of the 49 pups born on the Northern Range last year, only eight survived. In the Leopold pack, one of the most dominant in recent years, only two of 19 pups made it. In the nearby Slough Creek pack, 15 pups were born and only three survived.

 

"That's just catastrophic mortality," Smith said.

 

 

 

Disease strikes

 

Territorial skirmishes and other natural factors certainly play a part in pushing the park's wolf population up and down, but disease appears to have a role in more recent changes, Smith said.

 

Although distemper and infectious canine hepatitis can affect canids, including wolves, parvo remains a key suspect in Yellowstone. Park officials are planning to catch wolf pups this winter and test them for the virus.

 

The infectious disease, first identified in the 1970s, is typically associated with domestic dogs, which are routinely vaccinated against parvo. The virus can cause severe diarrhea, dehydration and other problems and can be fatal, especially among young animals. It typically spreads through feces and can survive for months before finding another host.

 

"It's quite hearty in the environment," said Mark Atkinson, wildlife veterinarian for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

 

While parvo may linger in the background, a convergence of factors can lead to a more serious outbreak that can prove fatal for infected animals. Animals that are experiencing some other kind of stress - severe weather or food scarcity, for example - could be more vulnerable to parvo's effects, Atkinson said.

 

In controlled studies, about one-third of young wolves exposed to the disease became clinically ill, Atkinson said. Of those, about 10 percent died.

 

Less is known about how the disease might affect wolves in the wild.

 

"With any disease in wildlife, there are so many factors, getting a good handle on it can be difficult," Atkinson said.

 

Smith said he was working as a wolf biologist at Isle Royale National Park in Lake Superior in 1980 when a suspected parvo outbreak reduced the population from 50 to 12.

 

The Yellowstone wolf population bounced back from a suspected parvo outbreak in 1999 but pup survival was still 40 percent, a far cry from 15 percent survival in 2005.

 

"Wolf populations can generally take a 30 percent mortality rate and stay stable," Smith said. "If this is one year, there's nothing to worry about. If it comes to successive years, we could have a problem."

.

[rimhunter]

I see the words SUSPECTED PARVO OUTBREAK several times but nothing saying that parvo was the cause .

[Outdoor Writer]

I see the words SUSPECTED PARVO OUTBREAK several times but nothing saying that parvo was the cause .

 

Well of course, it is only suspected when that was written. But here's the question to ask: If wolves are IMMUNE to parvo, then how can one even suspect it?

 

Here's another, this from AK with the opinion of a NON-GOVERMENT employee, those guys that do nothing but lie.

 

*****

The family lineage of the Toklat wolves is documented in the field notes of Gordon Haber, an independent biologist who studies wolves across the state with funding from Friends of Animals. Haber?s something of a thorn in the side of government biologists. He?s made headlines by accusing them of bad science, and of unnecessary cruelty while implementing wolf control measures; several years ago, he provided videotape to news media and environmental groups of a botched wolf killing that was anything but humane.

 

Haber says he?s confident that the Toklat wolves descend from a pack first studied by National Park Service biologist Adolph Murie from 1939 to 1941. (Murie referred to them as the East Fork pack, after the East Fork of the Toklat river. Haber refers to them as ?the Toklat family group.? He says that?s the ?accepted biological model,? while the term ?pack? promotes prejudice because it conjures images of marauding killers.)

 

Government biologists are skeptical of Haber?s claim. Layne Adams heads up a team of researchers who work for the US Geological Survey?s Biological Resources division. He cites genetic research from the last 15 years that he says proves that wolves don?t in-breed enough to provide a 60-year unbroken lineage. In fact, he says, wolves purposefully avoid in-breeding. ?By and large we?ve found that most packs are short lived,? he says. ?Statewide, we?ve studied around 40 packs over the course of 14 years and the East Fork pack is the only one that?s been there the entire time.?

 

Adams says the normal life span of a wolf pack is five or six years, and that government studies show that wolf packs tend to stay together just as long in areas where hunting and trapping are heavy as in areas where they aren?t.

 

Haber?s theory, based on personal observations over the last 30 years, may be impossible to disprove, but it?s not much easier to prove. Finding a 60-year lineage would require not just six decades of blood sampling, but an area of protection larger than anything Denali Park has to offer. All of Denali?s wolves are susceptible to subsistence hunting inside the park, and all of the known packs venture outside the park into sport-hunting territory.

 

Haber also disagrees with the government biologists about the cause of the Toklat wolves? decline. He says the wolves have been fed well over the last few years, and describes hunting and trapping as ?the overwhelming candidate? for the population drop. Haber also suspects that Parvo virus and other canine viral diseases might be to blame. Pups are particularly susceptible to Parvo; he says Denali?s wolves may have picked up infections from domestic dogs. ?It?s dog heaven up there.? Haber says he?s watched wolves following sled dog trails, sniffing at scat along the way. Viral diseases, he says, are ?a major possibility... that?s being ignored.?

 

 

And this is something else a Google search produced concerning the DNA facts.

 

 

Wolf Dog Coalition - Pierotti, Ph.D. letter to Chief Staff Veterinarian

Biotechnology, Biologics, and Environmental Protection

U. S. Department of Agriculture

 

 

 

Dr. Robert B. Miller

Chief Staff Veterinarian

Biotechnology, Biologics, and Environmental Protection

U. S. Department of Agriculture

4700 River Road, Unit 148

Riverdale, Maryland 20737-1237

 

 

 

Dear Dr. Miller:

 

I have just finished reading your report concerning your consideration of the information presented at the meeting of 4 April, 1996 on usefulness of rabies vaccines in wolves and wolf-dog crosses. I am disappointed in your report, for it seems to ignore virtually all of the important information presented at that meeting and to hinge largely on contrived issues that are not really relevant to the major points.

 

First, you ignore the unanimous opinion of the scientists who participated in the meeting that wolves and dogs are each other's closest relatives. The two are so close in fact that they cannot be distinguished at the physiological or genetic level, which means that from the perspective of medical treatment and vaccines they are identical. The issue of interbreeding is further evidence, but is not definitive. Wolves and coyotes can interbreed, but they are easily distinguished genetically whereas wolves and dogs cannot be so distinguished. Nonetheless, the appropriate scientific conclusion of interbreeding between wolves and coyotes (and between dogs and coyotes) is that rabies vaccines are appropriate for use in coyotes as well.

 

The issue you raise concerning use of modified live vaccines was not the issue discussed at the meeting. What the scientists present (myself included) agreed upon unanimously was that modified live rabies vaccine would not be used in any canids (including domestic dogs), since it breaks readily. The discussions of distemper, parvovirus, etc. was not the subject of discussion since these issues are not relevant to human public health. In any case, distemper and parvo vaccines work well in wild canids, since I have used them for years in my study animals (wolves and coyotes) and have never had a problem.

Since you state that the scientific panel "agreed that the (killed) rabies vaccines currently licensed for use in dogs should protect wolves," and there is a serious public health issue with coyote-borne rabies, the only defensible position is to recommend use of killed rabies vaccines in all Canis that may have contact with humans, including captive wolves, wolf dogs, and coyotes.

 

You assured me at the meeting on 4 April that you would make your decision based on the best scientific evidence. The decision you have reached, however, is clearly in contrast to the recommendations of your scientific panel, and appears instead to have been influenced by lobbyists for specific interest groups. I strongly encourage you to alter your decision to that which is in the best interests of both public health and the scientific evidence, and allow use of killed rabies vaccines in all members of the genus Canis that have regular contact with humans.

 

Yours,

 

Raymond Pierotti, Ph.D.

Professor of Evolutionary Biology

[KGAINES]

I wonder why these scientist appear to have differing opinions, could it be that the ones who like wolves are going to skew it in the wolves favor, and the ones who are against the wolves are going to skew it their way, scientist or not they still like to get paid and if we had the right answer it would probably be covered up by both sides. If the perfect plan came out and was flawless all the grant money would stop, then the only money they could get would be from special interest groups that want one side of the story, either side it doesn?t matter as long as they keep getting paid. As far as the parvo goes who freaking cares, we have to pay for the studies, we have to pay for the vaccines, we have to pay for the replacement packs that have to be put into the forests and trained to live like we want them to live, and if they don?t we have to pay to have them shot, and the funniest part about it is that we as hunters probably contribute more money to these wolves than any other group.

[.270]

wolves ain't the problem. the people that dreamed this crap up and administer it are. so tell me this, why did all the articles in the paper and why did the bioligists i talked to say that wolves were impervious to parvo? did the wolf folks just forget to innoculate the "wolves" for parvo? they shot em up for everything else. why did they make all the excuses about why they didn't know why parvo hit em like it did? it was a big deal when it happened and the folks in charge were sure surprised by it. and why does it say in black and white in the usfw documentation that they all have dog dna? get it and read it. why did they not try this in country that traditionally held wolves in substantial numbers? instead of the blue and gila wilderness, where there never were very many? whatever your take on it, scientist or layman, this wolf program is a joke and it's being played on us by folks with agendas other than science, biology, or endangered species. just a couple years ago the usfw got caught planting lynx hairs in an area that did not have any lynx, in order to further their "agenda". and the guys that got caught were given bonuses and promotions, among other accolades for it. and wolves will completely wipe out everything in an area to the point that they starve themselves or move elsewhere. it's happened in canada and alaska enough that there is good documentation to back it up. that's why the ariel shooting takes place. to lower the wolf numbers before they wipe everything out. every wild animal has to be managed. there it soo much civilization dispersed intermittently around the world to just let nature take it's course. and it has to be managed for the good of everything that has survived this long. i may not be a trained scientist, but i've got a brain that works fairly well and can form it's own opinions and have enough experience with wildlife and people to know what's bs and what ain't. this wolf program and everyone who champions it is pure bs. in my opinion. i'm gettin' bored with the whole deal. believe what ya want to believe. i believe the mexican gray wolf program is a stupid program administered by liars. i'm done. i got huntin' season to get ready for. rifles to sight in, livestock to shoe, saddles to fix, all that neat stuff. so who's goin' huntin' this year? i am. see ya there. Lark.

[Outdoor Writer]

Keith,

 

My college background is biology and journalism, and one thing I learned is science is never an exact science.

 

There's always certain disagreement and yes, it's often skewed by the "sides." Just take note of the arguments in regards to global warming. Can you decide which side is right and which one has an agenda?

 

As a journalist, when I REPORT on an issue, controversial or not, it's not my job to take sides but merely REPORT the facts that are out there. And the more unbiased the sources, the odds of getting the REAL facts -- not some emotional claptrap from folks with an agenda -- are much better. That's why I posted the two snippets about the parvo and the DNA in that last message that were taken from sources that had no connection to the wolf introductions in this country. When it comes to SCIENCE, emotion and agendas are evil intruders.

 

If I was reporting on the wolf issue, I'd probably disregard most of Mader's "facts" because his agenda is quite clear from his background. He is the son of a rancher who tried to monkey-wrench the wolf introduction from the get-go. Now, that doesn't mean I might not speak with HIS sources to see if what he purports was as actually told to Mader or had a spin on it to suit his agenda. But if I did use any of his "fact," I would sure make it clear on what sides he falls, despite his title of "Research Director for Abundant Wildlife Society of North America (AWS)," which I'm guessing is a self-appointed position.

 

Now, I'm curious if anyone has any figures about how much the wolf introduction here in AZ is actually costing the game department, i.e. hunters???

[DesertBull]

As a journalist, when I REPORT on an issue, controversial or not, it's not my job to take sides but merely REPORT the facts that are out there.

 

If only ALL OF THE MEDIA would follow that rule!

[Outdoor Writer]

If only ALL OF THE MEDIA would follow that rule!

 

Amen, brother.

 

When I do take sides, it's never as a reporter but as someone writing an editorial with my opinion(s). And I try to make that plain. Yet even then, I try to have the actual facts of the issue in plain view, too. -TONY

[KGAINES]

Most journalist skew what they are reporting one way or another depending on how they feel about it, it is human nature. Every single journalist out there says that they are just reporting the news/story, but there is always a spin on it, and then we read it or watch it and we decide how we percieve it. Like I said before it really doesn't matter and in the long run it is probably all about money and if it isn't I would love to know why they were released. If the wolves start to starve they will stop hunting in those areas because you are taking away their means for survival, the groups that got them in there know that and will use it as soon as it comes up, and just think the hunters will be the first ones to complain about the hunting not being as good, there aren't as many animals as there used to be, there are to many hunters for such a limited amount of game, cut back the tags to increase the game. Is there any plan in place if the wolves reach a certain number, will the game dept. just keep shooting the extras, what is the max number of wolves allowed, when they reach that number will they give them birth control, I have way more questions than answers and every answer I am looking for can be answered by a scientist or a journalist in any number of ways and they can all be right, they can also be wrong too, and then in the end a politician decides what is best for everyone, and we are all screwed.

[Outdoor Writer]

Lark,

 

Not sure I can answer all your questions to your satisfaction, especially since I would need to do some research on some. But I'll give a couple a stab, anyway.

 

>>so tell me this, why did all the articles in the paper and why did the bioligists i talked to say that wolves were impervious to parvo? <<

 

I've yet to find anyone anywhere that has put something like that in writing. Most comments I've read concerning the connection between parvo and wolves have been just the opposite. The only caveat I've read is that the ADULTS are pretty much immune to parvo. Obviously, in a weakened condition, even adults MIGHT be susceptable to parvo. Built up immunity to anything is never a sure thing across an entire population of any species, including Man.

 

That brings us to the next question, of course.

 

>>did the wolf folks just forget to innoculate the "wolves" for parvo? they shot em up for everything else. <<

 

As stated above, the general thought is that ADULT wolves, just as domestic dogs do, eventually build an immunity to parvo. If my research is correct, the only RELEASES of wolves into the wild has involved adults. Thus, supposedly no need to innoculate for parvo.

 

That said, wolf pups do not have that same immunity, and has been stated in many of the research papers I've seen, are indeed susceptable to the parvo virus. Soooooo.... innoculating the part of the wolf population affected by parvo the most would amount to capturing every wolf pup born in the wild. I doubt that would be feasible.

 

>>and why does it say in black and white in the usfw documentation that they all have dog dna?<<

 

Maybe you can point me to it? So far, everything I've found in the USF&WS documentation for the program states just the opposite. Below are a couple of snippets from the service's various EIS statements and such. Of course, they're probably lying again.

 

****

 

"Recent analyses of allele frequencies at ten nuclear microsatellite loci (gene locations) in Mexican

wolves from the three different lineages, other gray wolves, red wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs

provide the most definitive information on the ancestry and genetic purity of the three captive wolf

lineages (Garc?a-Moreno et al., 1996 and Hedrick, 1995). From these and other studies, the Genetics

Committee of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Team concluded that wolves in the three lineages are all

Mexican wolves and that there is no indication of any past cross-breeding with coyotes, dogs, or northern

gray wolves (Hedrick, 1995). These studies also provided convincing evidence that two of the four

founders of the certified lineage were probably mother and son, reducing the number of unrelated

founders for this population to three. Thus the total captive population of Mexican wolves stems from

seven founders. Captive breeding efforts truly have rescued this endangered subspecies from the brink of

extinction."

 

****

CASE STUDY: THE MEXICAN WOLF

Abstract

The Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) is the southern-most occurring and most endangered subspecies

of gray wolf (Canis lupus) in North America, historically occupying montane woodlands in the

southwestern United States (U.S.) and central and northern Mexico. It was extirpated from the wild in the

U.S. by private and government control campaigns and was listed as an endangered species in 1976. The

Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan recommends the establishment and maintenance of a captive population

and the re-establishment of a wild population. Captive propagation was initiated with 5 wild wolves

captured in Mexico from 1977 to 1980. In 1995, two additional captive populations were determined to

be pure through molecular genetic (DNA) analyses. Currently, there are 150 living wolves in the captive

population; and none are known to exist in the wild. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has

proposed the reintroduction of a nonessential, experimental population of Mexican wolves. A draft

Environmental Impact Statement addresses relevant issues and concerns associated with the proposal.

There is broad public support for the recovery and preservation of the Mexican wolf. Most people

affiliated with or sympathetic to the livestock industry are opposed. This case study demonstrates the

diversity and complexity of scientific and policy issues involved in the conservation and restoration of

large carnivores.

 

 

****

5. Reported wolf sightings from the Blue area

have been followed up, but none have been

confirmed. Even if the occasional lone wolf

existed in the area, the reintroduction effort

could proceed so long as there was not a

?population? (i.e., at least two successful

breeding pairs for at least two years). If in fact

a wild Mexican wolf existed in the area and

interbred with the reintroduced Mexican wolf

population, it would not destroy the genetic

purity of the reintroduced wolves, but it could

enhance their genetic diversity.

 

****

 

>>every wild animal has to be managed. there it soo much civilization dispersed intermittently around the world to just let nature take it's course.<<

 

You won't get any disagreement from me on either. BUT...I think that management will occur when the time is right, even though it might not be timely enough for some. If some folks in WY weren't being pigheaded, management of the wolves would be already implemented there for all three states, and the wolf would be delisted. But because WY wants it listed as a "predator" with no regulations in place for control, i.e. open season, the USF&WS turned it down. -TONY

[Outdoor Writer]

Lark,

 

Forgot to include the following in my other reply in regards to the DNA. -TONY

 

The evolution of the domestic dog

 

The earliest remains of the domestic dog date from 10 to15 thousand years ago21; the diversity of these remains suggests multiple domestication events at different times and places. Dogs may be derived from several different ancestral gray wolf populations, and many dog breeds and wild wolf populations must be analysed in order to tease apart the genetic sources of the domestic dog gene pool. A limited mtDNA restriction fragment analysis of seven dog breeds and 26 gray wolf populations from different locations around the world has shown that the genotypes of dogs and wolves are either identical or differ by the loss or gain of only one or two restriction sites22. The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence15,22,23.

 

In comparrison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence14 (Fig. 4). Therefore, the molecular genetic evidence does not support theories that domestic dogs arose from jackal ancestors24. Dogs are gray wolves, despite their diversity in size and proportion; the wide variation in their adult morphology probably results from simple changes in developmental rate and timing25.

[.270]

you forgot the last part of my last statement. doesn't really matter to me what anyone else's opinion of the wolf/dog introduction is. only opinion that matters to me is mine. agree or disagree. doesn't matter. i've convinced myself that it isn't a good thing and that it is based of falacy and administered by liars. i've witnessed it first hand, in field discussion and in the field. that's enough for me. boy, for a guy who doesn't take sides, it sure seems like you are on the wolf/dogs side here. ain't no way whatever it is they are turning loose can ever be a wild animal when they are handled from birth till death by people. Lark.

 

 

i'm gettin' bored with the whole deal. believe what ya want to believe. i believe the mexican gray wolf program is a stupid program administered by liars. i'm done. i got huntin' season to get ready for. rifles to sight in, livestock to shoe, saddles to fix, all that neat stuff. so who's goin' huntin' this year? i am. see ya there. Lark.

[Outdoor Writer]

Sorry. Usually when I see a ? at the end of the sentence, I consider it a question and try to answer such as best I can with the information I have or can readily get. In any case, I don't recall adding my "opinion" about the wolf introduction program to any of the answers to those questions.

 

Have a good night. -TONY

[AZP&Y]

i'm sure azpy and a few others will call me liar, but oh well, i do like to fish.

 

 

Hey LARKWOLF,

 

Now that we're talking the truth let's get something straight, I never called you a "liar" in fact wasn't it you that said I was " FULL OF CRAP" ?? for supporting the reintroduction, of course constructively put. Maybe stick to fishing? Looks like your line is snagged...

 

Parvo & Ranchers won't be the downfall of the wolf - That I guarantee...

 

Later,

AzP&Y