Bio-Warfare on Wildlife

[Connie]

The third paragraph of this op-ed mentions that in 1905 the Montana Legislature provided for the introduction of mange into our wildlife population for the purpose of killing wolves and coyotes. Given this, it would seem to me that the researchers in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem would be justified in doing something to give the wolves some relief from such an inhumane death. Does anyone else feel this way?

"I was saddened but not surprised to learn that members of Jackson Hole's Antelope Wolf Pack are infected with mange. This skin parasite has been taking its toll on wolves east of Yellowstone for the past decade and is identified as one of several reasons for the recent 40 percent decline in the Northern Yellowstone wolf population (27 percent decline for all of Yellowstone National Park). "

More at link:

http://www.trib.com/articles/2009/03/09/editorial/letters/01329682886e67d68725757300267ada.txt

[teklanika]

I wholeheartedly agree Connie - this disease was introduced by man and we should use whatever means necessary to eradicate it from our wild canid populations.

[Steve]

I suspect it's too late; the genie is out of the bottle. Sure, the animal can be treated, but then what? Release it back into the mange mite infested world?

[kalamitykatie]

Yeah, the actions of the legislature and vet in 1905 have had long lasting ramifications -- just as they intended.

I don't know what we can do about it to give relief to the wild canids that suffer mange now, but it sure should serve as a lesson regarding introduction of bio-agents!

~Katie

[Dave Parker]

Trying to tie, the current outbreaks of mange to the long ago stupid introduction of mange by the legislature would be nearly impossible. Mange also occurs without the intervention of man. Unfortunately mange is a part of the natural environment and has been for a long time, if we are going intervene on the behalf of wolves then we are not allowing nature to takes it course, and we would have to intervene on the behalf of other wildlife species when nature takes a turn for the worse..

I have also read that there is still some doubt if it was actually introduced, I do know historical documents mention it, but there is no definitive proof that they actually did it in the record books for Montana.

Dave

[Steve]

deeper in the article he says "I'm saddened too because there is reason to believe that the mange mite is not native to this region"
Now, whether that's true or not, I have no idea. It could have been there all along, it could have been reintroduced by someones pet in more recent history.

[Dave Parker]

As I said, trying to prove this came from the actions of the 1905 government would be impossible, believing it is non-native and actual scientific proof is two different things, they cannot prove it didn't exist and I think Franz is just grasping a bit here..as has been done on other issues at times that this group supports.

Dave

[ELK]

Where wopuld they get the mange to introduce and how in 1905? Is there any record of mangy wolves then? Why didn't coyotes get it? The mange has gotten worse as the years go by and the wolf numbers increase hasn't it? Is it as prevalent in Montana as it seems ot be in Yellowstoen and GTNP?

[kalamitykatie]

Where wopuld they get the mange to introduce and how in 1905? Is there any record of mangy wolves then? Why didn't coyotes get it? The mange has gotten worse as the years go by and the wolf numbers increase hasn't it? Is it as prevalent in Montana as it seems ot be in Yellowstoen and GTNP?

They captured wild wolves and also coyotes (which do, indeed, get it) and exposed "innoculated" them with mange (which could be simply exposing them to infected domestic canines -- not very difficult to do) and released them back into the wild to spread it.

The war on wolves took a strange twist in the winter of 1905.

After two decades of paying bounties for thousands of dead wolves in Montana, the Legislature approved a new law - "to provide for the extermination of wolves and coyotes" - dabbling in the emerging practice of biological warfare.

The idea was simple and cheap: capture wolves and coyotes, infect them with mange and send them back into the wild.

Eventually, the theory went, the animals would return to their packs and spread the highly contagious and sometimes fatal disease, which causes animals to itch so feverishly they lose hair.

The disease, caused by a tiny skin-burrowing mite, can leave wolves emaciated, staggering and susceptible to hypothermia, infections and other health problems.

Eastern Montana saw "unqualifiedly splendid results" and reports of hundreds of dead and diseased wolves, said Morton E. Knowles, state veterinarian at the time of the program.

He recommended the technique to others.

"The predatory pest question so far as coyotes and wolves are concerned will be settled for all time," Knowles wrote to The Breeder's Gazette, a farming and ranching magazine, in 1914.

Now, 102 years after the Montana law was passed, the same disease is threatening wolves in the country's signature population in Yellowstone National Park.

more>>
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles ... txt#199433

~Katie

[Connie]

Thanks for the supporting article, Katie. It reinforces my opinion that if mange is non-native to the area, then trying to fix a man-made problem would not really be interfering with nature. The interference was done in 1905.

My only experience with mange has been with the siberian husky I found a couple of years ago. He had it and all it took to clear it up was a pill. If that's the case, wouldn't it be simple to distribute medication via a carcass or baited meat? I know most biologists look at populations rather than individual animals, but it sure seems to be the humane thing to do.

Perhaps some graduate student will take this on as a research project.

[Dave Parker]

I just read that article again and it did not say mange is non-native, it said:

It probably was already in the environment, but it's impossible to know where and at what levels because records are so spotty, wildlife officials said.

That's part of the reason why it would be difficult to determine whether mange from Montana's program was the main contributor to today's disease in coyotes, foxes and wolves, Friend said.

Another passage from the article:

Mark Atkinson, a wildlife veterinarian for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said the disease can take a toll on individual animals but shouldn't affect the long-term outlook for Yellowstone's wolves.

"The immediate effects of an outbreak can be severe," he said. "But in the long run, it's not a disease that impacts stable populations."

Some have speculated - but it would be impossible to prove - that the mange seen today is related to Montana's effort to use it against four-legged "pests" early last century.


It also said it would take multiple vaccinations to treat in wild wolf populations! It is not a simple pill that could be put into food sources..

If it can not be said it is non-native and there is no definitive proof the program of the government caused it, then there is no way to justify trying to treat it.

I know people really feel for wildlife and suffering, but if we can't determine cause and effect then we should not interfere based on the mandates of the NPS as well as other agencies concerning wildlife populations.. I am very compassionate about wildlife, but as has been seen in the past, we Can't continue to interfere with wildlife populations as we have in the past, all it has done has screwed things up big time..

[Connie]

"Mange would be around in a messy kind of way every year, said Doug Smith, head of the Yellowstone Wolf Project. This is an exotic, introduced disease we want to eradicate but it may be impractical to do so."

More: http://wwarticles/show/36378.htmlw.earthtimes.org/

"Ironically mange is not a native infestation, but was introduced in Montana in the early 1900s as a crude form of biological warfare against wolves and coyotes."

More: http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/mange-photo.htm

"In 1909, wolves experimentally infected with sarcoptic mange were released in Montana as a wolf-control measure. "

More: http://www.timberwolfinformation.org/updates/mange.htm

According to Ralph Maughan: "I have not been able to determine if mange is a native disease to the West or an exotic from another area."

More: http://www.wolftimbers.org/More%20on%20mange%20problems%20in%20Greater%20Yellowstone%20wolves.html

[Dave Parker]

Connie,

We were not talking about those articles, we were talking about the articles that were posted in the news, this last couple of weeks.

Now, you have two quotes from Ralph, which cancel each other out, in one he says it is exotic and the other he says he cannot determine...The link from Doug says it is exotic, but he quotes no substantial proof to show it is actually introduced over being native, the timberwolf link, says it was introduce, but again does not offer proof of the speculation.

And above it all, there has been no link between what was done in the early part of the last century and the current outbreaks of mange..there is no definitive proof that what was done 104 years ago has anything to do with today...

Now we can continue to go out on the internet and search for articles that support our perspective positions, but when it is all and said and done, it is a fact of life, wolves get mange, no we can't tell where, when or why, and it would be impossible at this point in time to track it down, let alone eradicate it..it has become part of the natural system going on. It has also been said by other biologists that it does not present a threat to stable populations or the overall health of the Yellowstone wolves. Its like saying we can eradicate brucellosis in wild animal populations, it is an impossibility and we have used domestic cow vaccinations on them, with out very much success..

Again, we are several generations down the road from the early 1900's it is now part of the ecosystem, no matter how it arrived...

Dave

[Connie]

Oh, I know the 2 quotes from Ralph Maughan contradict each other. That's why I posted them. Interesting, isn't it? There doesn't seem to be any agreement among those that I expect would know, at least not at a quick glance.

I'm not arguing with you - just showing what I've found. Like I said to begin with, IMO, if mange is non-native to the area, then trying to fix a man-made problem would not really be interfering with nature.

I sure wish there was a way to deal with it, though.

[Dave Parker]

Connie,

I am not arguing with you either, but with as much as man has screwed things up over the last couple of centuries, I just think it would not be prudent to intervene again....there is just to little known to have a safe and sure way to proceed, other than letting nature takes its course..I would be concerned about the long term effects of using domestic vaccinations on wild wolves, it would have to be studied for a few generations to ensure it did not have bad effects. IMHO

Dave

[DanS]

Where wopuld they get the mange to introduce and how in 1905? Is there any record of mangy wolves then? Why didn't coyotes get it? The mange has gotten worse as the years go by and the wolf numbers increase hasn't it? Is it as prevalent in Montana as it seems ot be in Yellowstoen and GTNP?

Actually from my understanding that mange is only a recent phenomenon in YNP. It has been more prevalent OUTSIDE the park.

Sounds like you're trying to tie increased wolf populations to disease again there.... "elk".

[Dave Parker]

Dan,

Based on my research, it is only a recent event, but I would have to say, that is because, there are so few records between 1905 and 1990...very little mention in any of the records..

Dave

[Connie]

Connie,

I am not arguing with you either, but with as much as man has screwed things up over the last couple of centuries, I just think it would not be prudent to intervene again....there is just to little known to have a safe and sure way to proceed, other than letting nature takes its course..I would be concerned about the long term effects of using domestic vaccinations on wild wolves, it would have to be studied for a few generations to ensure it did not have bad effects. IMHO

Dave

Okay, I understand why you say what you do. And as Steve pointed out, even if a wolf were cured of mange, with the genie being out of the bottle, I guess the wolf would just get re-infested.

Is there a vaccination available for mange? As I mentioned, my vet just gave Max pills. With all the miracles of modern medicine, surely someone can come up with a solution.

[DanS]

Dan,

Based on my research, it is only a recent event, but I would have to say, that is because, there are so few records between 1905 and 1990...very little mention in any of the records..

Dave

I think the theme of the original post was attempting to insinuate that mange somehow has something to do with increased wolf numbers and that it originated in the wolf population inside YNP. A common theme from certain folks. The fact is that mange has shown up in wolf populations outside YNP before being found inside YNP. That was apparently not known by the original poster.

[ELK]

Dan,

Based on my research, it is only a recent event, but I would have to say, that is because, there are so few records between 1905 and 1990...very little mention in any of the records..

Dave

I think the theme of the original post was attempting to insinuate that mange somehow has something to do with increased wolf numbers and that it originated in the wolf population inside YNP. A common theme from certain folks. The fact is that mange has shown up in wolf populations outside YNP before being found inside YNP. That was apparently not known by the original poster.

If that was aimed at me, I think wolves got the mange early on just outside of Yellowstone, for all I know it came with them. It just seems to me like most diseases become more active in high population densities, no matter the animal or the disease.

[yellvet]

I'm not sure about how many different animal species are affected by mange but I do know that shortly after the wolves were re-introduced in the Park, I saw a definite decline in the coyote population, many which also had developed mange. The red fox clan over in the Slough Creek area also had mange for a number of years after the wolves were re-introduced. One female had it for years. I remember asking Bob Landis about ten years ago at a wolf presentation about the coyote decline and the mange problem and inquired if anyone had been studying this and if there was any connection whatsoever to the wolf re-introduction. He didn't know. In recent years, the coyote and fox health and numbers seem to have recovered fairly well while mange evidently is hitting the wolves. I know nothing about the science of mange but I do know that Mother Nature has a way of dealing her own set of challenges to wildlife. We have a local bighorn sheep herd that got hit with a virus back in the early 80's that was similar to pink eye. The rams became blinded by the disease and began walking off the cliffs to their death. With so few rams, the herd almost didn't survive but it was left alone to manage its own fate. The herd has now grown to over 30 members. Personally, I think it would be a big mistake for man to intervene and try to treat mange. I can see it all now. Brucellosis/mange management warfare at its best.......and worst.

[ELK]

Yellvet, I love that fox picture on your avtar.
Didn't the NPS feel one of the benefits of wolves was getting rid of coyotes?

[yellvet]

Elk, that little fox was a real ham...loved to have its picture taken. I really don't really know if the NPS was expecting the decline of the coyotes to be a big benefit or not after the wolf re-introduction. I think that most frequent Park wildlife observers expected some kind of impact on the other wildlife but probably weren't aware of the full extent. With another animal species thrown into the competitive mix for survival, it was certainly natural to expect to see other animals affected. They needed time to adjust to the presence and competitive nature of the wolves. I have to admit, though, that I wasn't really prepared to see such a dramatic decline in the coyote population. I also wasn't prepared for the decade it seemed to take for them to make the adjustment and recover from mange. Guess this is a good lesson for people who want to see everything honky dory with wildlife all the time. It just doesn't work that way. Wildlife get sick and can also be struck down by disease. And like humans, some recover and some don't.

[DanS]

Didn't the NPS feel one of the benefits of wolves was getting rid of coyotes?

The way that statement is worded as too much of an absolute I think...

NPS biologists predicted a decline in the coyote population due to wolves. However in no way were they interested in "getting rid" of coyotes. The fact of the matter is that coyote populations like many other specie populations were out of whack before the reintroduction.

[ELK]

Didn't the NPS feel one of the benefits of wolves was getting rid of coyotes?

The way that statement is worded as too much of an absolute I think...

NPS biologists predicted a decline in the coyote population due to wolves. However in no way were they interested in "getting rid" of coyotes. The fact of the matter is that coyote populations like many other specie populations were out of whack before the reintroduction.

Out of whack how?