November 20, 2017

WHO Describes Echinococcosis as “Considerable Public Health Problem”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

WHO*Note* – It has been through the difficult and persistent hard work of Scott Rockholm in his research that he found and has shared, “WHO/OIE Manual on Echinococcosis in Humans and Animals: a Public Health Problem of Global Concern.” For this all of us are grateful.

Even though, as is described in this “Manual” that human Echinococcosis(Hydatidosis) has been around since nearly forever, it wasn’t until the introduction of wolves into the Greater Yellowstone Area that some humans became aware of the fact that these wolves and other canines, wild and domestic, can be carriers of untold numbers of diseases and parasites, including the tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus.

When it was discovered in 2009 that over 60% of wolves tested in the Northern Rocky Mountains Distinct Population Segment of gray wolves were infected with the tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus, for many of us seeking truth, we wanted to know the whats, whys and wherefores of this parasite and how it would affect humans. For others, seemingly those whose bent is to protect the wolves that carry and spread this disease, any discussion of the topic usually resulted in the passing on of bad and irresponsible information and a playing down of the seriousness of this disease.

For those readers perhaps not familiar with this website, I have collected much information and studies on this disease and have really only scratched the surface. This information can be found through a link in the top menu bar of the home page. Click this link for more information.

Below is a portion of the “Preface” of the World Health Organization’s Manual. This disease is important enough to WHO and to the World Organization for Animal Health that even the title describes it as a “Public Health Problem of Global Concern.”

This “Manual” relates information about the disease, much of it in areas away from the United States, but the concern grows in this country as more and more wolves disburse throughout other areas of the country increasing the threat of the spread of infectious diseases and harmful parasites. Please bear in mind that over the past near 100 years there have been insignificant populations of wild wolves in America and thus the threat of the spread of E.g, from wolves, has been minimal, but grows as the number of wolves grows. Places around the globe that have always had wolves have dealt with human Echinococcusis for centuries. Because the United States has not, I suppose this has been reason for many, including the professionals we are told will protect us and those that are in charge of overseeing the management of wild canines, such as the wolf, to downplay the real and serious threat of human hydatidosis.

As is pointed out in this report, this threat is not something that should be downplayed as irresponsibly as it has been to date here in the United States. Education should be the first step in understanding how to effectively deal with this disease. For those interested, a copy of this report can be downloaded by clicking on this link.

“The second edition of the WHO Guidelines for Surveillance, Prevention and Control of Echinococcosis/Hydatidosis, published in 1984, was focused on diagnostic methods and control measures available to combat this disease in humans and animals. These guidelines were very well received throughout the world and represented a valuable source of information for medical and Veterinary Services of many countries. Since then the understanding of the epidemiology of echinococcosis has been greatly improved, new diagnostic techniques for both humans and animals have been developed, progress has been made in the treatment of human echinococcosis, and new prevention strategies have emerged with the development of a vaccine against Echinococcus granulosus in intermediate hosts.

In spite of significant progress achieved in the field of research and control, human cystic echinococcosis, caused by Echinococcus granulosus, remains a considerable public health problem in many regions of the world. Ultrasound surveys of populations at risk have shown that cystic echinococcosis is more prevalent than previously anticipated in many endemic regions. To date, disease transmission has been reduced or interrupted in some limited areas only, especially on islands, such as Cyprus, New Zealand and Tasmania. In continental situations, however, E. granulosus control is more difficult, often less effective, is costly and requires sustained efforts over many decades.

Recent studies in Europe, Asia (i.e. People’s Republic of China and Japan) and North America have shown that E. multilocularis, the causative agent of human alveolar echinococcosis, is more widely distributed in the northern hemisphere than previously understood. Alveolar echinococcosis, althrough rare, represents a considerable public health burden as the infection is lethal in most untreated patients and treatment is very costly. In addition, in Central and South America, cases of polycystic echinococcosis in humans, caused by E. vogeli and E. oligarthrus, occur in apparently increasing numbers.”

Share
  • GoldDust

    What!! You mean the all knowing International Wolf Center, the top wolf authority the world over dropped the ball on wolf diseases? What !!

    • Geoff Pritchard

      If we don’t have the sheep strain of E. granulosa in Idaho then what strain was responsible for the 3 human infections historically documented in Idaho?

      • Chandie Bartell

        Interesting how IDFG Mark Drew latched onto that. You would think as hard as he tried to “research” sheep sent to a slaughter house decades ago, and going back as far as to find people with Hydatid Disease in Idaho he would of been able to know the difference between the Sheep Strain and the Cervid Strain.

        USDA keeps good records. Maybe he can tell you where one of the shipment of sheep came from?

        Maybe he can tell you where those people moved from before they came to Idaho, along with their sheep? One family had been traced from North Dakota, before that through Canada.

        We are still talking about two different strains and Mark Drew had to know this as his name is on the study with Dr. Foyett. I think you should take that up with IDFG Mark Drew. Also have him update his website while you’re at it.

  • GoldDust

    Thats the best irrefutable evidence, right out of their own horses arse mouths. Nothing like good old government documents to back up the facts. I really love the WHO, the Supreme Courts, the Legislatures, the Congress, the U.N. Parliament, the European Parliament, the real legal historical record coming right out of their mouths.. They haven’t been lying to us, we’ve all been lying to ourselves.

  • Chandie Bartell

    They knew this too. We don’t h3ve the sheep str3in in ID, we h3ve G8 3nd G10 not FROM sheep which w3s 3nother lie. Sorry keybo3rd letters don’t work.

  • Idaho_Roper

    And this is the largest reason that Ed Bangs himself should be charged with a crime. He was personally warned of this danger prior to bringing wolves here, but in his haste and desire went out of his way to try and say this was not a threat. Every person whom contracts this disease, imo, has Ed to thank for it.

    • Geoff Pritchard

      “Every person whom contracts this disease, imo, has Ed to thank for it”
      Guess Ed won’t be getting any thank you’s then.

      • Chandie Bartell

        I would quit minimizing the serious impact of this disease.

        Sadly another case of “deliberate incompetence” on the part of Ed Bangs came up when a question was fielded regarding the types of “care” given the Canadian Gray Wolves before they were released into our states. Dr. Dethlefsen stated that NO significance was given to the Echincoccus issue as a health threat to humans in the introduction areas and as a consequence the only treatments given the wolves for both the hard and soft releases were for THE HEALTH OF THE WOLVES!!!!! Everyone in the audience realized instantly that we had been allowed to believe that the wolves had been screened and treated for any threat to humans from diseases they were carrying , but in reality NOTHING had been done in this regard!!! The audience at this point was very visibly angered!! At this time a man from the audience stood up and faced the room and remarked that to Ed Bangs and Company the tapeworm was a non-issue, but to his family it was an extremely devastating disease, since his wife had just had a Hydatid cyst removed from her liver. He stated that the family was hoping and praying that there were no more cysts that the doctors had missed. The gentleman remarked that his part of the cost for his wife’s surgery was 63,000 dollars! – See more at: http://www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/2011/05/10/overview-of-challis-idaho-meeting-about-hydatid-disease/#sthash.gPwYlcWs.dpuf

        • GoldDust

          Fk this troll.

          • Chandie Bartell

            Ah, it’s been fun watching him run in circles.

          • GoldDust

            Dull and boring is more like it.

          • Chandie Bartell

            You mean predictable, and yes that can be boring. It’s also sad because the people that hijacked our wildlife are really sinister, like that study going on right now at WSU.

          • Geoff Pritchard

            Or you can contact Foreyt or Rob Wielgus or trot on down the road to my house.
            https://news.wsu.edu/2014/12/03/research-finds-lethal-wolf-control-backfires-on-livestock/#.VIk5lmctDIU
            You believe that someone dedicated to research hijacked “your wildlife” while a trapper and his vet compadre are doing the REAL science? Sad. This truly is the anti-intellectuals at their best.

          • wolf moderate

            Rob Wielgus is on par with Gruber. They both have agendas and use “science” to fit there agendas.

          • Chandie Bartell

            This guy is something isn’t he?????

          • Chandie Bartell

            I’m not the one on here with problems understanding the gene-sequencing work being done at Colorado University.

            I think Rob Wielgus did a real disservice to WSU and will be suffering from it. I have no desire to visit WSU or Rob Wielgus. However I do find Cat Urbigkit’s critique of biased research is very interesting.

            atch shared a link.
            Posted by Chandie Morse Bartell · 23 hours ago
            (Please share!!)
            ** Believe It: Killing Wolves Works **
            by Cat Urbigkit
            Pinedale Online
            December 6, 2014

            There is much ado about a paper published this week, with headlines such as “Killing wolves to protect livestock doesn’t work in the long run” and “Kill this wolf and more sheep will die.” (The paper is linked below.)

            Even the research host university (Washington State University) reported “researchers have found that it is counter-productive to kill wolves to keep them from preying on livestock. Shooting and trapping lead to more dead sheep and cattle the following year, not fewer.”

            Similar headlines are repeated in the current news cycle, but it’s obvious few reporters read past the press release. I did read the journal article, and attempted to examine the data upon which the paper is based – which I could not do fully since:
            1) some of the data is unavailable,
            2) the literature citations are incomplete,
            3) the first two references I checked did not say what the paper alleged, and 4) the researchers did not specify which counties in the tri-state research area were included in its numbers for each year.

            Regardless, WSU’s flawed paper seems to be an exercise in comparing variables to seek out correlations without causation. (For examples, read The Ice Cream Murders or Cracked’s piece on broken science, both linked below.)

            The WSU paper is based on the assumption that breeding pairs of wolves “are responsible for most livestock depredations,” yet this vital assumption was not examined as part of the research, and the literature citation used to support the statement doesn’t support the allegation. While it is known that some breeding pairs are responsible for livestock depredations, no citation indicated that they are “responsible for most livestock depredations,” and that type of data for the 25-year time period and region involved in the WSU study has not been produced. Incidentally, when we’ve had wolves killing our family’s sheep, they weren’t part of Wyoming’s tally for breeding pairs.

            The researchers started with the assumption that breeding pairs are the important data set, and proceeded from there, using statistical modeling over a very large scale (the tri-state region of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho) rather than on a smaller scale, such as regions where wolf packs reside and come into conflict with livestock – areas on a scale where previous research has revealed that lethal control reduced depredations in subsequent years. It’s generally accepted that removal of carnivores causes an immediate reduction in livestock depredations for a year or two, but the cycle begins anew when carnivores once again fill the vacancies. That’s the way of non-static ecosystems.

            The selection of what data was used in the WSU research paper is important, and is center to my criticism of the entire paper and its nonsensical final result. Yellowstone National Park’s wolf packs and breeding pairs are part of the WSU data set, yet these wolves only come into contact with livestock if they leave the park.

            And of course the researchers used only cattle and sheep deaths that agency professionals could “confirm” as wolf kills, despite the fact that research has indicated that for every sheep or calf confirmed as killed by wolves, up to 7 are killed by wolves and are not confirmed. The researchers also did not include other livestock that were injured by wolves but not killed, or livestock kills that were determined by agency personnel to be “probable” wolf kills.

            The WSU researchers only included wolves that were killed “by livestock owners or through government control methods” – not wolves killed during legal hunting and trapping seasons in the region, or other sources of mortality. This data exclusion seems odd, since the paper begins with the statement “Predator control and sport hunting are often used to reduce predator populations and livestock depredations …” Although Yellowstone’s wolf numbers are used WSU data, the number-one cause of mortality in the park’s wolf population is instraspecific aggression (wolves killing other wolves) , but this was excluded from the study because only wolves killed by “livestock owners or through government control methods” were included in the data set.

            In another odd selection of data, the WSU researchers included wolf kills that were made by agency personnel in order to reduce predation on declining wildlife populations (and where there had been no livestock depredations).

            The WSU paper did not factor in the number of incidents of livestock depredation, which can be a significant. While the total number of dead livestock is important, the number of incidents is revealing as well. For instance, the number of confirmed and probable wolf depredations on sheep increased in Idaho in 2013, including one incident resulting in the death of 176 sheep in Idaho. Interagency reports indicate that a decline in losses would have occurred with the exception of this single incident. A similar incident occurred in Montana in 2009, when 120 adult rams were killed in one incident (a huge increase from the 111 sheep killed in the state the year prior).

            This cherry-picking of data is concerning, and to prove that point I’ll do my own cherry-picking from the researcher’s data in a moment.

            The researchers concluded, “It appears that lethal wolf control to reduce the number of livestock depredated is associated with increased, not decreased, depredations the following year, on a large scale – at least until wolf morality exceeds 25%.”

            Neglected is the fact that once wolves begin preying on a livestock herd, the depredations don’t magically stop – the wolves often return, until control action is taken or the livestock are removed. It may be convenient to pretend that the depredations would not increase if the wolves are not removed, but it is not realistic. Despite the variety of non-lethal measures already in use by livestock producers, wolves still manage to kill livestock, and often the only feasible way to stop the depredations is to kill the wolf or wolves responsible for the depredations. Data from Wyoming in 2012 reveal that 27% of Wyoming’s wolf packs were involved in more than three livestock depredation events, and that there are some areas where wolf depredations on livestock are chronic – areas where the expanding wolf population moves into high density populations of livestock and, in these chronic conflict areas, it’s only a matter of time before wolves are killed after the predictable livestock depredations occur. One wolf pack was responsible for 43% of Wyoming’s cattle depredations in 2012, and three packs were responsible for 70% of the sheep depredations.

            Some packs that are counted as breeding pairs are not identified as breeding pairs each year, and Wyoming research revealed: “Overall, it appeared that natural factors unrelated to known mortality sources were the primary cause of non-breeding status” for the majority of packs not classified as breeding pairs. Only three packs of 11 breeding pairs from the year prior were downgraded because of mortality from confirmed livestock depredations.

            The 25% number mentioned above is interesting as well – that’s the growth rate of the region’s wolf population every year. If control efforts exceed that 25%, the wolf population (and number of breeding pairs) begins to decrease – and, lo and behold, results in fewer livestock depredations, according to the WSU researchers. But that doesn’t make the headlines.

            The WSU study has inspired me to do my own cherry-picking of the paper’s data. In comparing the data from the first year to the final year (1987 and 2012), what jumps out at me is that the number of sheep in the wolf-inhabited counties of each of the three states declined while the wolf population boomed. The number of sheep declined by more than 11% in Wyoming; 70% in Idaho; and 57% in Montana – during the same time period that the minimum wolf population increased by 6,150% in Montana; 1,219% in Idaho; and 4,778% in Wyoming.

            It’s also worth noting that the WSU paper simply looked at numbers taken from specific data sets, and did not consider how each wolf population was managed – be it through sport harvest or agency management. It’s an important factor as well, as noted in the annual interagency report prepared for Wyoming, which notes: “During this period of wolf population growth, wolves also expanded in range and recolonized new areas. Beginning in 2006, US Fish and Wildlife Service switched to a more aggressive approach to wolf control following confirmed livestock depredation, leading to a decrease in the number of livestock losses despite an increase in the overall wolf population. Since 2000, wolves have commonly recolonized areas outside {northwestern Wyoming’s trophy wolf hunting area}, but have rarely persisted more than a year or two before being removed for confirmed livestock depredation. These persistent damage problems and subsequent control actions limited range expansion of wolves into unsuitable habitat even while under Endangered Species Act protections. The state of Wyoming developed its wolf management framework to likewise restrict wolf range expansion into these areas of unsuitable habitat and high livestock density by designating wolves as predatory animals in these areas.”

            The interagency report noted that in general, wolves living in areas with relatively high native ungulate densities and relatively low exposure to domestic livestock have caused fewer conflicts with livestock than wolves that recolonized areas of unsuitable habitat where large numbers of livestock grazed on private and public lands, especially those areas outside the trophy wolf hunting area.

            The WSU paper concludes: “Further research is also needed to account for the limitations of our data set. The scale of our analysis was large (wolf occupied areas in each state in each year) and the scale of some other studies were small (wolf packs). Simultaneous, multiscale analysis (individual wolf packs, wolf management zones, and wolf occupied areas) may yield further insights. “Although lethal control is sometimes a necessary management tool in the nearterm, we suggest that managers also consider testing non-lethal methods of wolf control because these methods might not be associated with increased depredations in the long-term.”

            Non-lethal control efforts are part of everyday ranch life in the tri-state wolf range, but are not appropriate in all situations. As state and federal officials noted in the Wyoming’s 2012 wolf monitoring report, non-lethal control is often not applicable or cost-effective in many areas in Wyoming due to: 1) specific wolf packs chronically killing livestock year after year; 2) unpredictable travel patterns and movements by wolves; and 3) very large wolf home ranges that covered vast areas including very large grazing allotments. The interagency report noted, “In instances when non-lethal control methods were ineffective, wolves were killed through agency control actions in an attempt to prevent further livestock depredations.”

            The WSU research paper conflicts with more comprehensive studies conducted on a smaller scale (grazing allotment, wolf pack territory or management zone), causing the WSU researchers to note: “It appears that wolf control is associated with reduced depredations at the local wolf pack scale but increased depredations at the larger wolf population scale.”

            Those who want to jump on the bandwagon of killing wolves only results in more livestock deaths may want to reconsider. The reality is that when wolves inhabit areas used by livestock, some livestock will be killed, and some wolves will be killed in response. What really matters is that we take action to minimize the damage to all.

            (http://www.pinedaleonline.com/news/2014/12/BelieveItKillingWolv.htm)

          • GoldDust

            Intellectuality does not automatically include intelligence. I’ve personally observed online and in person numerous articulate dummies. Calling others anti intellectuals simply because they have a different set of values and understanding than yourself, or see a problem differently than you yourself see and understand the same problem does not define them as anti intellectual. Chandie is denouncing what she feels is an injustice. So are you. You might consider yourself an intellectual yet you have failed to prove you are intelligent. You waltz in here and accuse us of being backwards in our thinking, you accuse myself of misspelling a title on a Western Watersheds Video, and now laughably you sling out this meaningless innuendo “anti intellectuals.. To top it off, you obviously have not put in the amount of research into all of the studies and available data of this parasite topic that many here have done. You’re also according to the Grammatik program communicating here in fifth grade level english. If you came here seeking a “smart” guy contest you’d better up your game or give it up now because you’ve consistently shot yourself in the foot here.

          • Ernie Meyer

            they re spin doctors and dangerous

          • Chandie Bartell

            I agree Scientific Fraud by government agencies is dangerous. Here is another example.

            Here is another example. J. Gordon Edwards, Ph.D.

            Value of Pesticides to Humanity

            ABSTRACT

            The chemical compound that has saved more human lives than

            any other in history, DDT, was banned by order of one man, the

            head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Public

            pressure was generated by one popular book and sustained by

            faulty or fraudulent research. Widely believed claims of

            carcinogenicity, toxicity to birds, anti-androgenic properties, and

            prolonged environmental persistence are false or grossly

            exaggerated. The worldwide effect of the U.S. ban has been

            millions of preventable deaths.

            Fraud in science is a major problem.A 2002 report published by

            theAmericanAssociation for theAdvancement of Science (AAAS)

            on “fraud in science in Germany” stated that International

            Scientific Misconduct Rules should “punish deliberate or grossly

            negligent falsification or fabrication of data,” and that “failure to

            cooperate with investigations will be considered an admission of

            guilt.” Ombudsmen will be appointed “to probe for examples of

            misconduct, including falsification, fabrications, selective use of

            data, and manipulation of graphs and figures.” Upon reading this

            article, I prepared a 34-page list of frauds published in U.S.

            scientific journals and sent it to the editor of . Although he

            responded courteously, he evidently did not wish to publicize this.

            The most common examples of fraud in the United States

            appear to be environmental, including acid rain, ozone holes,

            carbon dioxide, ultraviolet radiation, global cooling, global

            warming, endangered species, and pesticides. This article will

            primarily concern the last, especially DDT.

            http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

        • Geoff Pritchard

          “Everyone in the audience realized instantly that we had been allowed to believe that the wolves had been screened and treated for any threat to humans from diseases they were carrying”
          Because the wolves were screened and no diseases of any SIGNIFICANT human health threat were noted. Did they release rabid wolves – no. Canids and other animals get and carry tapeworms. So does your cat and dog and plenty of other animals you’re way more likely to come in contact with.
          I assume you have no firsthand knowledge of this event (you weren’t there as it once again seems to be a “cut and paste” thing). If you were, where/when was this meeting? I’d like to verify some of this – especially the “man from the audience” who just happened to have had his wife go through surgery for hydatid cyst removal (obviously not wolf caused if it happened at all).

          • Chandie Bartell

            Geoff That isn’t copy paste that is a letter that Tim Kemery who was at that meeting witnessed first hand as he was there and wrote a letter to me about it to share.

            If you don’t want my knowledge that was written by Tim Kemery first-hand himself, call him on the phone and talk to him yourself in person.

            Your tactics of targeting me to assassinate my character (all day are inappropriate), and the information I share and sources.

            I have been more than patient and gracious to you today, and pain painstakingly answered all your questions. I’ve also offered for you to to arrange speaking to the people on the sampling team.

            It sounds like you are familiar with my area, do you live in Deary on Drury Road and own Bunch Grass Farms? Deary, Idaho isn’t far from me and I know a lot of the loggers that live in that town, as a matter of fact I teach 4-H there. Are you that Geoff Pritchard?

  • Geoff Pritchard

    E. granulosa has been present in Idaho since being first noted in the 1960’s. The WHO report targets it as a health concern in developing nations with poor sanitation. Although Idaho does qualify as backward thinking it still has 1st world sanitation. There have been 3 cases of hydatid cysts reported in Idaho SINCE 1938!

    Read the report and check into the references:

    http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/diseaseEchinococcusWolves.pdf

    • GoldDust

      Actually the entire United States is guilty of backwards thinking. Men screwing men in the backside, women kissing and licking each others private parts, doesn’t get much more backwards than that, Pseudo post modern sciences, out right historical lies, political conmen, wars and plunder of other countries, internal division and economic strife.. Intentional dumbing down by public schools and Universities by mundane automaton academics, Incomplete data taken as factual gospel such as this pdf document by Drew, which we’ve all seen numerous times.. Lol, America is flushing itself down the toilet backwards..

      “In Custer and Lemhi Counties in Idaho, a trained team of volunteers has been collecting fecal and intestinal samples from Primary host species such as fox, coyote, wolf, pine marten, and cyst samples (liver and lung) from ungulates. The collected samples are part of a Genotype Study being sponsored by Colorado State University. This spring the Genetic Strains identifying the Echinococcus tapeworms we have on our landscapes have been found to be of two Genotypes, G8 and G10. No Sheep Strain G1-G3 have been found in any of the samples analyzed. Since our counties in Idaho were the first to recieve introduced Canadian Grey Wolves we could also document that the E.g tapeworm hosts, both primary and intermediate were not domestic dog and sheep as had been previously suspected but using the DNA analysis we can track the G8/G10 right to the Canadian Grey wolves and their forebearers in Canada. Elderly populations of Domestic Sheep and Cattle have been screened for E.g Cyst presence since 2010 and no evidence of any have been found. Both the E.g Strains G8/G10 are Cervid Specific and are of Eurasian origin. These two strains are very agressively colonizing deer and elk in Custer and Lemhi Counties with the Liver and Lung Cysts estimated to be in as high as 70% of our Cervids. Both counties are considering severe containment strategies to attempt to break the disease cycle. Tragically the disease is Non-native Invasive. The prognosis is grim, both for residents of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and their Wildlife. The costs of Containment Protocols and Safety Standards will be high and must be borne by parties responsible. Mr. Jiminez is correct only superficially in stating that the Wolves introduced from Canada were treated for Tapeworms. The deception of his statement is glaring as the ONE dose of anthelmentic given the captured Canadian Grey Wolves was not at all adequate to clear the upper intestinal tracts of these canines. The proper dosing is 3 Doses of Praziquantal at 2 week intervals, with all feces cleaned daily from holding pens. We are happy to provide any interested persons with the Genotye Study results if they should so desire.”—Tim Kemery, E.g Field Sampling Coordinator Custer County, Idaho.

      • TRemington

        One of the key issues in Kemery’s report here is the confirmation of the presence of the G8 and G10 strains. Yes, the “pastoral” strains of E.g. have been around for many years. The G8/G10 strains existed only in the northern climates north of the Canadian border.

        • Geoff Pritchard

          No – the G8-G10’s existed north of the 45th parallel not the Canadian border.

          • Chandie Bartell

            Why are you minimizing the fact we now have an aggressive form of an invasive northern bio-type of Echinococcus granulosus in Idaho USA and Montana USA that was never recorded here before?

        • Chandie Bartell

          That is why Dr. Delaine Krisky tested samples of canids all through Idaho after the Utah pastoral outbreak of the sheep strain. Idaho tested clean.

    • GoldDust

      Since you brought up backwards thinking; How about a taste of reality Mr. forward thinker?

      Being a citizen is to be a slave;

      “Citizenship, is, by definition, a condition of allegiance to, and participation in, a governmental jurisdiction. It means, for a collective order, a pledge of loyalty, commitment to actively participate in civics and community, and willingness to serve when and where called upon. …. Citizenship begins within the individual but is nurtured by the country.” – Eduardo Aguirre, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services “Citizenship connotes membership in a political society and implies a duty of permanent allegiance to that society.” -David Weissbrodt, Immigration Law and Procedure In a Nutshell “[Citizenship is] a collective bond of uniform legal status and a shared source of common rights and duties….” Introduction, Citizenship Policies for an Age of Migration, ed. T . Alexander Aleinikoff and Douglas Klusmeyer , Comparative Citizenship Project, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace If you are a U.S. Citizen or any other delineation thereof such as a state citizen, or state national (pre-civil war) you are a part of a Religious Order, known as the International Public Order, and governed by Public International Law which is governed by the Holy See by the Pope.

      Public international law (or international public law) concerns the relationships between the entities or legal persons which are considered the subjects of international law, including sovereign nations, the legal status of the Holy See, international organizations (including especially intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations), and in some cases, movements of national liberation (wars of national liberation) and armed insurrectional movements (see insurgency). Norms of international law have their source in either 1) custom, or customary international law (consistent state practice accompanied by opinio juris), 2) globally accepted standards of behavior (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens), or 3) codifications contained in conventional agreements, generally termed treaties. Article 13 of the United Nations Charter obligates the UN General Assembly to initiate studies and make recommendations which encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification. Evidence of consensus or state practice can sometimes be derived from intergovernmental resolutions or academic and expert legal opinions (sometimes collectively termed soft law).

      International law has existed since the Middle Ages (see Islamic international law), but much of its modern corpus began developing from the mid-19th century. In the 20th century, the two World Wars and the formation of the League of Nations (and other international organizations such as the International Labor Organization) all contributed to accelerate this process and established much of the foundations of modern public international law. After the failure of the Treaty of Versailles and World War II, the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations, founded under the UN Charter.

      The UN has also been the locus for the development of new advisory (non-binding) standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Other international norms and laws have been established through international agreements, including the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war or armed conflict, as well as by agreements implemented by other international organizations such as the ILO, the World Health Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the International Telecommunication Union, UNESCO, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund. The development and consolidation of such conventions and agreements has proven to be of great importance in the realm of international relations.

      “citizenship or declared allegiance to a foreign state generally will not be possible absent substantial evidence, apart from the act itself, that the individual specifically intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship.

      Obviously calling oneself a CITIZEN and claiming to be a free man is backwards thinking.. THINK BACKWARDS MUCH?

    • Chandie Bartell

      Wrong.

      IDFG Vet Mark Drew is grossly in error.

      The first Hydatid Cyst of G8 and G10 the Cervid Strain was found in a Mountain Goat in Central Idaho in 2006. This was the first time a Hydatid Cyst was found in our wildlife in Idaho, there was no record of it in Montana USA, or Idaho USA. It was identified by Dr. Foyett as a northern bio-type. Ed Bangs was warned in the EIS about this aggressive northern form of Hydatid Disease as people died from it in Alaska and Canada, and it cycled out into their wildlife from reindeer that were shipped into Alaska.

      This I repeat is NOT the sheep strain. Mark Drew knew that as his name is on the study that was done by Dr. Foyett in 2009 when IDFG quietly started sampling wolves and cervids.

      Have you read the Dr. Krisky Letter about the Sheep Strain outbreak in Utah in the 70’s? The reason he tested Idaho and neighboring states was to make sure that the E.g. of any strain had not been cycled out into other canids like coyotes and foxes. Idaho tested clean of Echinococcus granulosus.

    • Chandie Bartell

      One thing you missed here Geoff Prtichard when I conferenced with people last night about your comments, (and that is why they wanted you to call them), is that there were millions of sheep in Idaho. Along with those millions of sheep were sheep-herders.

      Secondly ,as I said before this strain of Hydatid Disease found in our cervids is not the Sheep Strain. So the sheep issue is inaccurate false information and IDFG Mark Drew should of taken this link down a long time ago.

      One group of people that had Hydatid Disease (the sheep strain) not the strain that has infected our wildlife, came from North Dakota and already had the disease when they moved to Idaho.

      The only pastoral outbreak of the Sheep Strain of Echinococcus granulosus was in UTAH.

      USDA keeps very strict records to catch all cases of Hydatid cysts shipped to slaughter houses.

      All sheep and bovine samples have tested clean so far for Hydatid Disease in Idaho.

      In addition Dr. Krisky tested Idaho and found no Echinococcus granulosus in Idaho.

      • GoldDust

        I’m certain the “discussion” with Mr. intellectual forward thinker has ended.

  • GoldDust

    The King says he owns me, I say no you don’t, he says I’m thinking backwards according to his own thinking.. He claims what is right, I say he is wrong, he claims I’m thinking backwards.. Forward thinking is to be knee deep in mutt shit while starving…

  • Geoff Pritchard

    “Please bear in mind that over the past near 100 years there have been insignificant populations of wild wolves in America and thus the threat of the spread of E.g, from wolves, has been minimal, but grows as the number of wolves grows.”
    You’re making the assumption that only wolves transmit/spread this organism when, in fact, it is all canids. The same association of increased threat with increasing numbers can be made with regard to any canid – coyote, fox or dog.

    “Places around the globe that have always had wolves have dealt with human Echinococcusis for centuries.”

    FROM the CDC – The parasite is transmitted to dogs when they ingest the organs of other animals that contain hydatid cysts. The cysts develop into adult tapeworms in the dog. Infected dogs shed tapeworm eggs in their feces which contaminate the ground. Sheep, cattle, goats, and pigs ingest tapeworm eggs in the contaminated ground; once ingested, the eggs hatch and develop into cysts in the internal organs. The most common mode of transmission to humans is by the accidental consumption of soil, water, or food that has been contaminated by the fecal matter of an infected dog. Echinococcus eggs that have been deposited in soil can stay viable for up to a year. The disease is most commonly found in people involved in raising sheep, as a result of the sheep’s role as an intermediate host of the parasite and the presence of working dogs that are allowed to eat the offal of infected sheep.
    Perhaps it is the presence of sheep or wild ngulates rather than a single species of canid that leads to prevalence of Echinoccoccusis.
    .

    “Because the United States has not, I suppose this has been reason for many, including the professionals we are told will protect us and those that are in charge of overseeing the management of wild canines, such as the wolf, to downplay the real and serious threat of human hydatidosis.”
    By the same token, those agencies are also responsible to not create hysteria over something unlikely to pose any significant public health threat.

    • GoldDust

      It’s about education and proper dressing out and handling of wildlife taken in the field such as ungulates or carnivores not hysteria. It is also about handling domestic dogs differently that might live inside, walk on carpet, or roll on carpet where children ages 2 years old an up might be playing, and being in contact with said domestic dog which is one of the highest risks of infection of children where this parasite is concerned. Nothing to do with hysteria. It’s actually part and parcel to co-existing with wolves and being knowledgeable about the diseases they spread and how to avoid being infected. An informed public can take responsibility for possible health threats if they know how to prevent them.. Talk about backwards thinking, assuming informing the public would throw them into some hysterical panic, you’re really entertaining us here.. But hey, if you want your relates in the dark about prevention thats your business. I prefer being well informed myself.

    • Chandie Bartell

      Your in error again. All coyote and fox samples sent in were Echinococcus granulosus tested and were negative.

      The only canid that tested positive were wolves (100% infested) and it was the G8 and G10 genotypes, not the sheep genotypes.

    • Chandie Bartell

      Why did you remove your name?