From 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.
