November 21, 2019

Winter Ticks Haven’t Figured Out Where to Ambush the Moose

Nathan Terriault has a “Special to the Bangor Daily News” about his belief that perhaps the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) should be providing more moose permits rather than fewer. Much of this is substantiated by the notion that there are too many moose – at least in some places – and as a result the moose population is not healthy, i.e. malnourished and carrying hundreds and thousands of winter ticks making the moose anemic and susceptible to exposure and predation. I might add that moose are also carrying or infected with what MDIFW likes to call “lungworm” but what I would call Hydatid cysts from the Echinococcus granulosus eggs carried by wild canines. These cysts also make the moose more susceptible to escaping or fleeing from harm by predators.

Terriault’s piece is well thought out and I would have to agree with much of what he is saying, as I have recently written questioning whether MDIFW is attempting to grow and perpetuate too many moose due to social demands rather than devising desired populations based on scientific evidence.

However, I have to snickeringly take issue with one comment that was made, not so much as a means of correcting Mr. Terriault but to make sure that readers better and more accurately understand about winter ticks. Terriault writes:

Forestry practices, such as clearcutting and strip cutting, concentrates cover for moose and funnels animals through areas where ticks lie in wait for host animals.

This is true information but it might lead some to think that the ticks have actually figured out exactly where these moose “funnel” and go there and wait; much the same way large predators do. A tick’s life cycle, part of which begins when the ticks (female) drop from the moose in Spring. From that point, wherever the drop occurred, the tick larvae and the tick do not travel any great distances – by human standards – and these drop zones are not necessarily within one of these “funnel” corridors. In the late Summer and early Fall, the tick climbs vegetation wherever they are and they wait, hoping to catch a ride on a passing moose. If they don’t catch a ride, they die. It’s that simple.

From the moment a tick attaches itself to a moose, where that tick ends up next Spring, to drop and begin the cycle all over again, is dependent upon the travels of the moose. Understand as well that the time in which ticks are climbing vegetation looking for a free ride happens to fairly closely coincide with the moose mating season, when moose travel the most due to increased activity. Where the tick is picked up by a moose and then dropped in the Spring could be some distance away, even by human standards.

It shouldn’t be thought that moose are carrying more ticks because ticks are moving into the regions where moose seem to be traveling the most, although simply because of those natural actions it is possible that more ticks might be present in a travel corridor than some other random spot, but I can’t believe it would be of any significance.

I think the facts are clear, and I’ve never read any studies that suggest ticks have figured out where to go to catch a ride, that there are more ticks everywhere, because there are more moose everywhere. Therefore logic would suggest that if you reduce the number of moose, there would be less ticks and healthier moose, which is, what I think, Mr. Terriault is suggesting.

Share

The Fuss Over Maine’s “Endangered” Lynx: What About the Whitetail Deer?

While agenda-driven environmentalists, who couldn’t recognize an honest scientific process if it lifted it’s leg and peed on their shoes, fret and stew over the Canada lynx in northern regions of Maine, the whitetail deer is moving toward extirpation. For those who pay attention at all to history, the Canada lynx was called the “deer wolf.” Note: Post normal science and history would tell us that, like the fairy tale of Little Red Riding Hood, early settlers calling the Canada lynx the deer wolf was probably also a myth to scare children through abuse. Anything to protect a predator at the cost of the destruction of other species.

There’s not much sense in trying to sugar coat the fact that in northern Maine, the whitetail deer is struggling to persist. Excuses are abundant: severe winters, deer are at their northern range (although further north in portions of Canada there’s not necessarily the same struggle), loss of habitat, the pope is Catholic, etc.

And yet, as the deer population there in Maine struggles, other species that compete with, threaten and prey upon the deer are overprotected – black bear, bobcat, Canada lynx and coyote/wolf hybrids. Because the whitetail deer has historically been the species of focus for most hunters, why then are we protecting everything that wants to destroy the deer? Maybe I just answered my own question, if you follow.

Now that the totalitarians have taken complete control of the Canada lynx, there’s little now that Maine’s wildlife managers can do to mitigate the loss of deer due to loup cervier, the deer wolf. The same act of wildlife management extortion, via the Endangered Species Act, has further severely restricted trapping and so what now will become of coyotes and bobcats? I suspect increased predation on whitetail deer.

For now, Maine is off the hook as far as putting an end to bear hunting but don’t take that to the bank. So long as Maine Guides control what the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife does with the implementation of bear hunts, I don’t expect any real effort to reduce bear numbers in areas where the deer are struggling. This is where, as a matter of convenience, anyone can play any one of a number of those excuse cards that explain why the deer are disappearing. I’ll bet this is a good chance to get a grant to study global warming in Maine and it’s affects on deer. Line up!

Nobody else will make notice that the deer are, more than likely, feeling the effects of hydatid cysts on lungs and other organs, that reduces their ability to evade predators.

Maine biologists reported, albeit inaccurately and incompletely, that moose examined in portions of Aroostook County had, what officials called, “lung worms.” What the moose had were hydatid cysts, the result of ingestion of Echinococcus granulosus eggs found in the scat of wild canines. Ingestion of these eggs by humans can be fatal. The more the coyote/wolf hybrid is protected the greater the chance of infecting wild ungulate populations in Maine (deer, moose) and putting humans at risk.

Because the cysts were found in moose, the likelihood of finding similar cysts in deer grows. The last thing Maine’s deer herd needs is another enemy. Wintering deer can struggle to exist under normal circumstances but if moose and deer struggle to breathe due to cysts on the lungs, liver, brain and muscle tissue, odds of surviving the onslaught of predators goes down.

Over the past several months, all focus has been on defeating an anti human, bear referendum and now it has shifted to Canada lynx. The deer still suffers while managers hope and pray for some global warming. The question I have is what will then become the excuse for disappearing deer herd when Maine’s climate becomes like Virginia’s?

NorthernMaineDeerHarvestLynx

Share

E. Multilocularis Spreading Rapidly – Humans Threatened With Alveolar Echinococcosis

“Animal health researchers are watching what appears to be mounting evidence of the spread of a potentially dangerous parasite in coyotes, foxes and other animals in Canada.

That’s a concern, they suggest, because the parasite, a tapeworm, can on occasion spill over from its wild animal hosts to infect dogs and humans.

And while people aren’t the tapeworm’s preferred hosts, a growing number of human cases are being seen in Europe and parts of the world where the parasite is more established.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Minnesota Found E.G. in Moose in 1971 Knew Then Recruitment Non Sustainable

Image3290I must commend our good friend and ever vigilante researcher, Will Graves, for digging up a report containing data and other information from a report filed after the conclusion of a Minnesota moose hunt in 1971. It was reported that this moose hunt was the first allowed in 49 years in that state. The full report can be found at this link.

I suppose the first thing to note is the simple fact Echinococcus granulosus was found in the lungs of moose. As is a terrific way for biologists to collect data, mandatory check-ins by hunters provided opportunity for biologists to retrieve samples for testing. In addition to the taking of samples at the check stations, hunters were required to reveal the location of their moose kills in order that scientists could visit the site and retrieve more information from gut piles.

Over the past 6 or 8 years, there has been much discussion, at least in certain corners of the country, about the fact that wild canines, specifically being discussed are wolves, are the host species of the tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus. Tiny eggs embedded in and deposited all over the landscape through wolf scat, presents a situation in which wild ungulates, such as deer, elk and moose, while grazing, ingest these eggs. As part of the cycle, hydatid cysts can form in organs throughout the body. Perhaps the most common being the lungs, but also found in the liver, heart and brain. This is what was found in Minnesota.

Humans can also ingest these eggs, the result of which could be fatal. Hydatid cysts in humans is difficult, at best to detect, and perhaps even more so to treat. The greatest threat of humans contracting this disease is probably through contact with the domestic dogs, particularly those that live indoor and outdoor. While outdoors, family dogs can eat infected carrion and/or get the eggs onto their fur and in and around the mouths. Family dogs can be part of the cycle and if not properly de-wormed, can pose a very serious threat to members of the family who live with the dog. Imagine what is happening to you or your child, in the home, when the dog licks your hand or your child’s face.

The point of all this is to state that when some of us, being led by Will Graves, researcher and author of Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages and co-author of The Real Wolf, along with George Dovel, editor of the Outdoorsman, Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus University of Calgary, Dr. Delane Kritsky, noted parasitologist at Idaho State University, et. al., took to cyberspace and beyond to get the message out about Echinococcus granulosus, we were all told it didn’t exist and any talk of threats to humans was exaggerated and nothing to be concern with.

And now we discover that biologists in Minnesota over 40 years ago had discovered the presence of E.g. in moose in Minnesota. However, there is much more to this report that Will Graves has unearthed for us.

The moose hunt in Minnesota in 1971 took place in two regions of the state. (Please see map in linked-to report.) The two zones were separated by perhaps 100 miles. One zone located in and identified in the report as the Northeast and one zone in the Northwest. It is here stated that Echinocossus granulosus was “common in the northeast” and not so much in the northwest.

Fascioloides magna was the parasite in the northwest, while Taenia spp. and Echinococcus granulosus were common in the northeast.

I also find it interesting that with today’s prevalence of denial of the presence or risk of threat from Echinococcus granulosus, that biologists in 1971 were, along with other parasites, looking for Echinococcus granulosus. If it was something not of interest, why were they looking for it? Do you suppose over 40 years ago, scientists suspected, with the presence of wolves, moose might be infected?

Field crews investigated as many kill sites as possible. Lungs were examined for the presence of Hydatid cysts (Echinococcus granulosus) and lungworms (Dictyocaulus app.).

The biologists at the time where making the same examinations and taking the same samples from moose harvested in both the Northwest and Northeast hunting zones. What they found when comparing data between the two zones is tell-tale.

The Northeast zone, “carried larger loads of Echinococcus granulosus.” As a matter of fact, a considerably larger load. In the Northeast zone it was found that 60% of the moose carried Echinococcus granulosus. In the Northwest zone, only 10%. There must be an explanation.

The incidence of E. granulosus and Taenia spp. in the northeast is evidence of a higher timber wolf (Canis lupus) population in this part of the state.

43 years ago, wildlife biologists in Minnesota were willing to acknowledge that the higher the concentrations of wolves produced a higher incidence of Echinococcus granulosus in moose. It’s remarkable in a way, when we consider the deliberate roadblocks being constructed by some to prohibit any serious discussions and the educating of the public about this issue of Echinococcus granulosus and the potential threat it can have on humans.

But this isn’t all.

Most of us know that Minnesota is claiming that they don’t have understanding as to why the moose herd in that state is on a serious decline. Some want to blame it all on climate change, the collect-all excuse for everything these days, and a convenient means of covering up incompetence and political agendas. While the distractions and excuses continue to mount, it is my belief that officials in Minnesota pretty much have a distinct reasons and the proof of the beginnings of what has become, or soon will be, a predator pit and an unsustainable moose herd.

This report of 1971 clearly tells anybody interested in truth and facts that in the Northeast zone, where wolves were highly prevalent, the moose recruitment rate stood at such low levels, it would be only a matter of time before the moose would be gone.

Data from the aerial census and classification counts indicate a net productivity of 30-35% in the northwest and 9-15% in the northeast. This indicates a difference is occurring in the survival rate of calves in their first six months of life between the two areas. Area differences in nutrition, predation and parasitism may be responsible for these observed differences in net productivity.

If memory serves me correctly, in 1971 the United States was at the beginning stages of the fake “global cooling” flim-flam, but there was no talk and presentation of excuses as to how a planet, that was going to crumble and crack into millions of pieces due to cold, was responsible for a moose calf recruitment rate in Northeast Minnesota that anyone knew to be unsustainable.

With the environmentalists, which include the ignorant predator protectors and animal rights totalitarians, who want to create what they are attempting to coin as a “new understanding and a paradigm shift” about wolves and other predators, no longer to them are facts, history, real science or common sense anything worth considering. And that is the bottom line truth of what we are dealing with.

Tried and proven wildlife management, even the very basics, tells us that if there is not a high enough survival rate among the new born of any creature, to replace all other mortality, the species will not survive, at least in any sense of healthfulness. Instead, hidden behind other agendas, people want to replace this with “new understandings” and “shifting paradigms.”

Searching for “new understandings and paradigms” Minnesota is looking everywhere for the answer that stares them in the face. Wolves spread disease and devastate games herds and all wildlife and yet the “new understanding” is trying to tell us about trophic cascades and how the wolf creates nirvana.

Oh my God! We’ve actually come to this?

Share

Hydatid Cysts in Elk and Unexplained Worms

The information for this article came to me from various sources of emails. In an email sent to Idaho for Wildlife, pictures of hydatid cysts infecting a recently harvested elk and a brief story are shared.

“Greeting Steve, my name is XXXXX XXXXX[Feb. 3, 2014 – name was removed per request of the person.]. I live in Cascade, Idaho. I saw the flyer on the hytadid elk disease on a flyer at a store in Donnelly, Idaho.

The attached pics are from a cow elk my wife shot last week a few miles north of Donnelly in Valley County. Lesions look the same. The entire elk was infested with tiny white worms. Every part of it. They were entirely thoughout all the meat. If you look in the pics closely the worms are kinda straight but wiggly shaped. I had a IDFG Officer inspect it. He got on the phone with the biologists at headquarters in Caldwell and they requested a sample and condemned the elk. They requested I bury it which I did. I looked over your groups website and thought I should forward this to you. Call me if you would like to discuss.”

XXXXX XXXXXX[Feb. 3, 2014, Name was removed per request of the person.]

All photos can be enlarged to full size for more precise viewing. Just click on the image and then click again on the following page.

hydatid1

hydatid2

hydatid3

hydatid4

The following is information sent to me by Lynn Stuter pertaining to the photos above.

“Like many of you, I received the following e-mail,

The attached pics are from a cow elk my wife shot last week a few miles north of Donnelly in Valley County. Lesions look the same. The entire elk was infested with tiny white worms. Every part of it. They were entirely thoughout all the meat. If you look in the pics closely the worms are kinda straight but wiggly shaped. I had a IDFG Officer inspect it. He got on the phone with the biologists at headquarters in Caldwell and they requested a sample and condemned the elk. They requested I bury it which I did. I looked over your groups website and thought I should forward this to you. Call me if you would like to discuss.

For those who don’t have ready access to a map, Donnelly is a ways south of McCall in Idaho. In looking at the attached pictures, at least some of the cysts, in the lungs, appear to be Hydatid cysts, ungulates being the intermediate host to the Echinococcus granulosus tapeworm.

I sent the pictures to Dr Valerius Geist. In part he responded, “please spread the word to open suspicious cysts, cut it with your knife, to expose the hydatid sand.” The “Hydatid sand” Dr Geist speaks of is the tapeworm heads that look like sand in the fluid that exists inside the cyst. If the cyst is full of tapeworm heads, you know the animal had Hydatid.

While some may fear contracting Hydatid by doing this, know that the tapeworm heads must be ingested by a canine (wolf, coyote, dog) to become adult tapeworms capable of producing eggs. The tapeworm heads are not a threat to humans, only the eggs of the Echinococcus granulosus tapeworm that causes Hydatid are a threat to humans. If ingested by a human, the eggs hatch in the intestines, burrow through the intestinal wall, enter the vascular system, and usually travel to the liver or lungs, where Hydatid cysts are formed.

Of course, if gutting an infected animal at the residence, be sure to secure and remove the guts (offal) so the family dog does not get into them, ingest the tapeworm heads, and become infected with the Echinococcus granulosus tapeworm, thereby spreading the eggs in its feces around and in the home, eggs that are a threat to humans and especially to small children who play in the grass and on the floor in the home.

The worms in the meat of this elk would not be Echinococcus granulosus as the tapeworm heads, found in the Hydatid cyst, must be ingested by a canine (wolf, coyote, dog) to develop into mature tapeworms. If a cyst is ruptured, inside the host animal, the result is most often anaphylactic shock followed by death. This is also true with humans. There is always an exception to the rule, however. If a cyst is ruptured, and the host does not go into anaphylactic shock and die, the tapeworm heads do not infect the meat and become mature tapeworms; the tapeworm heads that survive form new cysts inside the host.

What the worms are, in the meat of this elk, is yet to be determined.”

Share

Are Wolves Causing Low Body Fat in Moose in Minnesota?

The Duluth News Tribune has a story from yesterday, March 18, 2013, that headlines that wolves are taking a toll on Minnesota moose; a headline that many of us have waited for for quite some time. But perhaps the headline is a bit premature. Further data collection and research might tell a better and more complete story……..or will it?

It’s always difficult to get an accurate assessment of events such as wildlife studies from newspaper accounts and I don’t think I need explain why. So, from this one newspaper account, I would like to point out just one part of it that presents a confusing and perhaps misleading bunch of statements. This may be intentional bias or not. I don’t really know, but it does little to solve a problem.

Here’s a snippet taken from the article:

Of the two animals that died from other causes, both appear to be victims of wolf attacks. One had been mostly eaten, and the other had injuries from a wolf attack but had not been eaten. From a post-mortem investigation at the scene, it appears wolves got the big cow’s calf and then left the area before the cow died, Butler said.

“She died from secondary issues after being wounded by wolves. … It was pretty cool how (the crews) went in there and figured out what happened,” Butler said.

While wolves were the ultimate cause of death for those moose, Butler said both of them, and even some of the moose that died from capture-related stress, had lower-than-usual body fat in what has been a fairly normal, if not mild, winter in moose country.

“When we are capturing them in January, that’s early enough in winter that they should still have some good body fat, and three of these didn’t. That’s not normal,” Butler said.

A reduction in nutrition, possibly from warm weather in the summer when moose are too hot to eat, or from habitat issues, is one theory why moose are having problems making it through winter.

It’s not so much that this information may be perceived as incorrect as it is that it is incomplete. In addition it’s a continuation of the perpetuated bias found in most all media accounts of why moose are disappearing in Minnesota. For years people have questioned this phenomenon and for years have refused to place any of the blame on the presence of wolves. The blame has always been on global warming. And what is near a tragic event is that perhaps their answer is staring the scientists right in the face as might be indicated from this account.

Two moose are said to have been killed as the result of wolves but the researchers seem to be marveling at the discovery that the moose have lower than expected body fat. Once again, the blame is put on the possibility that it is warmer summer time temperatures, along with reduced habitat, that is causing it. Again, not that this assessment is wrong, but for God’s sake do any of these researchers have an understanding of stress factors on moose, the result of which comes from the mere presence of wolves? Have they no elementary knowledge that stressed out moose will not eat as they should in order to gain the needed fat supplies to get through the cold winters? Or that the body fat will come off quickly and/or never be put on due to constant harassment?

It doesn’t end here either. Also included in the snippet above is the account of the cow moose’s calf that was eaten while the cow, having been attacked also by the wolves, was left to die. What is just as infuriating to me is that not only do I see the seemingly blind ignorance of not attributing low body fat to stress from wolves, it also appears that the researchers can’t understand why there is such a low calf recruitment of the moose.

Some people don’t understand that it isn’t necessarily the adult moose that need to be killed off to destroy a population. All you need do is reduce the calf recruitment, that is circumstances that do not allow for calf moose to live beyond their first year, to a level where sustainability becomes problematic. When calf recruitment nears zero, one can expect to find precipitous drops in total moose populations.

In the account shown above, are we not seeing the preferred diet of the wolves? Is not the young calves, obviously easier for the wolves to kill than a full grown moose, the cuisine of choice? And if this is true, why then is it some seemingly obtuse puzzlement to understand why moose calf recruitment is in trouble?

It is hopeful, yet I remain skeptical, that a completion of this study will get to the bottom of the problem. The skepticism comes when one reads accounts such as this that makes people like me see that researchers are seeking a pre-hoped-for outcome.

And speaking of incomplete studies and information, will we also from this study, get any work done on all the diseases that moose suffer from; one of them being hydatid cysts found in the lungs that can have not only health issues, but lessens a moose’s ability to escape predation. If they want to know what’s killing the moose, all factors must be considered. Otherwise, these people will just stick to the claims of global warming and loss of habitat; which may be their goal anyway.

Share

Hydatid Cyst Transmission and Growth

Hydatid Cyst Transmission and Growth
February 22, 2013
Author: Clayton H. Dethlefsen
Chairman and Executive Director
Western Predator Control Association

ISSUE: Can Hydatid Cysts cause the development of Hydatid Disease without the Transmission of E.g. Tapeworm Eggs through their expulsion in the fecal discharge of Canines?
 
DISCUSSION:

Key Point: Transmission from Hydatid Cysts that directly creates a new Cyst happens.  The only question is how this happens.
 
Ungulates with multiple Cyst including humans generally get them when Cyst that they already have burst or seep causing the Protoscolices (Hydatid Sand and/or the Cyst Fluid) to migrate to new location within the body.  Mostly these new cysts grow within the same body cavity or the same or immediately adjacent vital organs.

Hydatid Fluid contains tapeworm larva that have heads with connected tails that look much the same as swimming frog pollywogs. This fluid is often referred to as Hydatid Sand, which, if it gets into the circulation or respiratory system, can flow its way to new ungulate body locations.  Also, new cyst can form, if the initial Cyst was in the eye, in the eye socket, and if the initial Cyst was in bone marrow, new Cysts (because of the bone’s structure) are habitually confined to the bone’s cavity. Also, Cysts form in the tracheal and bronchial tubes, particularly where the Trachea branches into the Bronchi, or at a subcutaneous location if Sand from a burst or leaking cyst moves to these locations.
 
A good number of multiple cysts have developed from leakage of cystic fluid during surgical procedures including Puncture, Aspiration, Irrigation and Reaspiration (PAIR) and/or biopsy procedures used to determine if in fact a cyst is an Echinococcus granulosus (E.g.) product.  Most medical research on children and operations on these patients have been done in their brain cavity where PAIR and biopsy processes are extremely restricted. When secondary Cysts do form adjacent to vital organs or in adjacent brain locations, including those that form post operation, they cause a resurgence of nearly identical patient symptoms and problems. However, if the Sand migrates to other body locations the symptoms are usually somewhat different, as is their medical impact.

(Keep in mind that symptoms of Hydatid Cyst involvement are numerous, dependent on their location, and are similar to other vital organ maladies and/or infections such as tumors or bacterial infections which cause physical pressure increases and/or the destruction/decaying of organ tissue in circulation, respirations, digestion, etc. systems.)
 
The question of whether a person can get a cyst or cysts from puncturing them while field dressing game or butchering domestic animals comes up frequently.  In considering this we have to understand that viable (infectious) Hydatid Sand must get directly into a susceptible body cavity and/or vital organ, and the environment surrounding a cyst’s growth must nearly approximate the hermetically sealed or the surgical environment that is inherent with the formation of a new cyst, or a secondary cyst from an original leaking or bursting cyst.
 
We have positive medical records with photographs that show cysts occurring in human eyes, bone marrow and from external injection in subcutaneous tissue. We also know that cysts form internally in the vital organs and at the juncture of the trachea and bronchial transition. The cysts that occur at these non-normal locations form as a result of unusual circumstances, which generally do not include free movement of E.g. Eggs or Hydatid Sand through the normal process, i.e. the ungulate’s circulation system.
 
In the cases of Eye Cysts, Trachea and Bronchial Cysts and Subcutaneous Cysts, Cyst formation, normal and non-normal, has had only limited medical evaluation; therefore, no absolutely definitive formation-origin or cause has been confirmed. But several doctors and/or medical researchers believe that it is feasible that cysts in these locations can and do start with the direct-to-the-site, as opposed to by the normal circulatory system, introduction of E. g Eggs and/or Hydatid Sand from external sources and by external means.
 
The circulation system in the eye cavity where eye-cyst growth starts is primarily at the end of the circulation system, where very tiny capillaries distribute blood, and where the eye socket is warm and well lubricated. This fact and the fact that normal cyst formation is nearly always in the nearest and most easily accessible vital organ (fed by large veins and arteries) makes it highly improbable that eye cysts, for example, would be sourced through the ungulates digestive system with subsequent movement by blood-flow through capillaries. It is therefore more possible that initial and secondary eye cysts, as well as, subcutaneous, some bone marrow (reference broken bones) and bronchial and trachea cysts can and do occur as a result of more direct contact with and movement by outside physical transmission means.
 
Further, the normal development and passage of E.g. eggs (at this point they have developed into oncospheres) directs that they in sequence attach/seat themselves in major vital organs such as Liver, Kidney, Lungs and Heart, and as often in the case of children in the child’s Brain, and not further down the very constricted recesses of the circulation corridor. It is therefore most reasonable to conclude that cysts in the eye socket, bone marrow, and in subcutaneous tissue, as well as at the junction of the trachea and bronchi come by way of other transmission means.
 
From confirming medical data, specifically patient records and medical research, we find, conclusively, that cysts can develop and have developed from seeping or burst cysts, particularly when multiple cysts are found, and specifically without the introduction of new E.g. eggs (oncospheres). What is not clear, particularly with cyst that form from surgical procedures (where the body cavity is open to an external atmosphere) is how long Hydatid Sand will maintain a viable-infectious protoscolices loading or allow secondary cysts to grow after the patient’s surgery has concluded and the patient’s surgical site is closed.
 
During surgical procedures (a very sterile process in a maintained-sterile external environment) it is confirmed that Sand/Protoscolices exposure, because of the normal length of a surgical procedure, has been and is many hours. Hence it is reasonable and logical to conclude that (in the near-term) time of exposure of Hydatid Sand to an external environment seems to have little degradation or death effect which would prevent the formation of secondary cysts from Hydatid Sand.
 
Taking all this factually based information and using the “Reasonable Person” method of assessment, it is logical to assert that both primary and secondary Hydatid Cysts can form in ungulates if Hydatid Fluid flows, is inhaled/ingested or is injected from an external source (Elk, Deer, domestic sheep, cattle, etc.) into a human. Of course this Hydatid Fluid needs to move into open human and other ungulate orifices (mouths, bleeding cuts, nose, eye sockets, etc.) from where Hydatid fluid movement continues into susceptible body nodes through normal respiratory and/or bodily flow processes. Although rare, this action can and does happen.

It has been medically determined and medically reported that cysts can form in the respiratory system at and near the junction of the trachea and bronchial connection, in subcutaneous tissue through injection and direct contact with an open wound, and in a very wetted eye cavity. It is also a medical fact the E.g. eggs and subsequently oncospheres survive the passage through the hostile digestive environment in ungulates and that scolices/protoscolices are unharmed in the hostile canine and human digestive, circulatory, respiratory systems. If these conclusions were not factual the E.g. life cycle would have terminated centuries ago.
 
It has also been established that human hands, insects such as coprophagic flies and wasps, and wind are transporters of E.g. eggs from one point to another, and that ingestion, injection and inhalation are all primary means by which E.g. is transmitted. Thus, open access to Hydatid Sand with viable protoscolices from a burst or seeping cyst can also be transmitted by these means, and can henceforth be inhaled, ingested and/or injected into an ungulate with the result being the formation of new and/or secondary Hydatid Cyst.

CONCLUSION:

Fact–Humans get secondary Hydatid Cyst from internally located bursting and/or seeping Cysts.

Too, in the case of humans (hunters, butchers, etc.) it is not only feasible but it is truly possible for people to get Hydatid Cysts from an ungulate’s exposed Hydatid Cysts. This occurs when Hydatid Sand from a Cyst that has burst and/or is seeping comes into contacted with a human’s transmission means, and thereafter, this Hydatid Cyst Fluid (with viable Protoscolices) enters external body orifices. Transmission by hands or by having Sand surge or gush in some other manner into external orifices of the body are such means; hence, Cysts do not occur just from direct involvement with E.g. Eggs.

*Editor’s Note* – I presented this article to Dr. Delane Kritsky, noted parasitologist from Idaho State University. In particular I wanted clarification, once again, that hunters and trappers are not in danger of contracting hydatid disease simply by handling game animals that may have hydatid cysts. Here is Dr. Kritsky’s response:

Tom: It is true that if a cyst is ruptured within your body, it will result in new cysts developing. In addition, it is possible to inject material from a cyst from one host into a new host which will result in development of a cyst (or cysts) in the new host (This is often done to maintain E. granulosus and E. multilocularis in laboratory animals); injection is usually within the body cavity; this is one of the dangers associated with surgical removal of cysts — rupture and the release of the hydatid sand into the body cavity during surgery could result in new cyst development in the patient. However, there is no danger in becoming infected just by handling (or eating) a cyst that might have been present in a harvested animal. delane

 

Share