September 26, 2020

Sneak Preview VI – Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?

Cover290In referring back to the statement of Dr. Johnson to the Montana Environmental Quality Council, Dr. Johnson states that Droncit is “100% effective” for getting rid of tapeworms in wolves with just one treatment. If that was so, why then did he say he gave “at least twice” the number of injections that a 100% effective worm-killing drug would do.

The World Health Organization says that: “Although the efficacy of praziquantel is highly reliable in almost all cases, the possibility of low residual worm burdens in some of the treated animals cannot be excluded, notably if mistakes of drug administration occur.” Perhaps “almost” 100% would have been more accurate to describe the effectiveness of Droncit and perhaps “at least” two doses of Droncit would be responsible, if one considers the seriousness of the spread of disease. Was that the case here?

What we don’t know from Johnson’s statement is what the dosages given were for each wolf. In researching information on Droncit (praziquantel), The Food and Drug Administration(FDA) tells us1 that dosages depend on the weight of the animal. Did Dr. Johnson give injections “at least twice” because he spread out the “100% effective” dewormer into two or more injections? If so, does that render the drug ineffective?

The FDA also warns that harm or death can result to an animal that is dosed too highly. Therefore we must assume one of two things. One, that there was only really one injection divided into two or more administrations of the drug, which I think is rational to assume that was not the case, when considering the World Health Organization’s explanation that human error in administering Droncit might play a role in the effectiveness of the drug. It just doesn’t make sense that it would be done that way. Or, two, all the wolves captured in Canada were given two or more doses of Droncit at full dosage and other anti-parasitic drugs before being shipped to the U.S. Without putting the wolves in danger by following the FDA recommended dosages of Droncit, a first injection would have been given to the wolves followed by a second dosage 30 days after. And I assume 30 days after for all subsequent injections. That is my understanding.

So, were the wolves kept in crates or holding pens in Canada for 30 days, or longer, so that “at least twice” Droncit could be administered to each wolf? I’ve never seen any records that would indicate that Canada kept captured wolves for 30 days or more, but as I have said, information and records of this event are sketchy at best, and perhaps intended to be that way.

The reason this is important is because we Americans have been told on repeated occasions that “it is extremely unlikely” that any wolves came into the United States infected with Echinococcus tapeworms, i.e. those of the “northern strain.” We know this “northern strain” was readily found in Alaska and Canada, as far south as the northern border of the United States. So, trapped wolves that were caught in Canada were caught in landscapes where the more virulent strain of Echinococcus exists.

If the wolves were not kept in Canada for 30 days or more, then were all the wolves brought into the United States put into holding pens so they could be dewormed? Dr. Johnson’s statement makes less sense the more we examine it.

If Droncit is 100% effective, then why the need to offer a statement that all wolves were given Droncit at least twice? Of what was the Montana Environmental Quality Council trying to be convinced of?

Complicating the issue is that we know some wolves were brought in crates from Canada directly to their release zones and let go . We have been told that all wolves were dewormed before entering the United States. But how can we be sure?

The records I have indicated above that I possess, I had a licensed veterinary doctor examine these records. The doctor had no information about why I wanted an opinion other than I was writing a book. The doctor sent me this statement:

Share

Sneak Preview V – Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?

Cover290From this moment forward, I may annoy you but I will not allow you to forget that the Final Environmental Impact Statement, compiled by non elected personnel, told the American public that historic information about wolves, public safety, and human health was, “limited,” “poorly documented,” “not reliable,” could “never be scientifically confirmed or denied,” and “would not significantly affect human safety or health.” I intend to prove them wrong.

Only casually, since I have been reading, writing and researching about wolves globally, I began compiling studies and documentation about wolf diseases, in particular information about E.g.1 and Echinococcus multilocularis2, as well as Neospora caninum.3 All one has to do is review this information, readily available Online, and this information should be easily accessible to the most powerful nation on earth, the part of whose function is to research and document wildlife diseases BEFORE forcing coexistence between humans and animals.

When you examine the cited literature within the FEIS, it reveals many studies and scientific documentation, etc. that date well before 1995’s wolf (re)introduction. Surely then, we can reasonably assume that the wolf recovery team had access to the same studies that I have been able to access. Why then is it that it has to appear as though there was lots of cherry picking of so-called, “Best Available Science” to fit the wolf (re)introduction narrative? It is one thing to disagree on conclusions about scientific information but when it is completely ignored, except within the fraternity of those determined to get wolves, at least we should be asking questions.

Given that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the wolf recovery team were, no doubt, granted a certain degree of deference in how they approached things and decisions made as to what would and would not be considered for further evaluation for the FEIS, make no mistake about it, the agenda here was wolf recovery at any expense; monetary and/or public safety.

Let’s examine just some of the information that the FEIS and members of the wolf recovery team decided was not worthy of further investigation as well as to disprove their claims that global documentation of wolf behavior and wolf related diseases were, “limited,” “poorly documented,” “unreliable,” and “never be scientifically confirmed or denied.”

It was in 1984 when the World Health Organization published the Second Edition of, “Guidelines for surveillance, prevention and control of Echinococcosis/Hydatidosis.”4 This study, 160 pages, and all resources in reference, date prior to wolf (re)introduction in the United States.

In 1986 the World Health Organization(WHO) published a five-page information and data resource titled, “An International Study on the Serological Differential Diagnosis of Human Cystic and Alveolar Echinococcosis.”5 The very first sentence of the very first paragraph states: “Echinococcosis in humans is a serious problem of worldwide importance.” How can such a statement be labeled as “limited” information, “poorly documented,” “unreliable,” and can “never be scientifically confirmed or denied?” Incidentally, this report lists the number of patients with Hydatid disease in the United States.

Share

Sneak Preview III – Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?

Cover290Here’s another glimpse into “Wolf: What’s to Misunderstand?” This portion is found in Chapter II, dedicated to understanding the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

“It is vitally important that readers fully understand the power of the Endangered Species Act. For without that understanding, future discussions about wolves in the United States, or any other “threatened” or “endangered” species, can make little sense. What once began and was sold to the American people as a law that would guarantee the protection and preservation of species that might unnecessarily be destroyed due mostly to man’s efforts at growth, has morphed into a mammoth, crippling law that by some standards is the most powerful and destructive law in the world.

It took years of research and study of this law, reaching far beyond the crafted words of the law itself, to discover that the Endangered Species Act is only one small part of a global effort to cede rights, destroy sovereignty, individual and collective, control land and the resources within that land; to breed scarcity and economic strife. The ESA is not a law simply to save an animal or a plant.

Whether we like the law or not, whether we disagree or agree, whether anything I write will have an effect on you, matters not. We have the law of the Endangered Species Act and it is what we must deal with, but please, approach the Act with correct and complete knowledge of what the Act can and will do when abused and administered corruptly.”

Share