This is a warning to outdoor users about a potentially deadly biological event that could result from one’s curiosity to poke at and kick through scat from wolves, coyotes and foxes. Of course not everyone knowingly does this but many hunters, trappers and simply the curious, want to know what these animals have been eating.

Back in the end of November I gave you a link to a story, “Of Wolves and Worms”. That story introduced many of us to the subject of worms being found in wolves in the Greater Yellowstone area.

According to a new study out in the October issue of the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, three-millimeter-long tapeworms known as Echinococcus granulosus, are documented for the first time in gray wolves in Idaho and Montana. And the authors didn’t just find a few tapeworms here and there… turns out that of 123 wolf intestines sampled, 62 percent of the Idaho gray wolves and 63 percent of the Montana gray wolves were positive. (Ew!) The researchers wrote: “The detection of thousands of tapeworms per wolf was a common finding.” (Again… Ew!!) This leads to the interpretation that the E. granulosus parasite rate is fairly widespread and established in the Northern Rocky Mountain wolves.

There is discussion about how some think the worms ended up in the wolves in this region but the article tends to downplay any serious concerns people should have from coming in contact with these tapeworms and the eggs they leave behind.

In the comments section of the article, Will Graves, author of the book “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, left his thoughts on his own research discoveries about the dangers to humans of these parasites.

In the first paragraph in my letter to Mr. Bangs dated 3 October 1993 on the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) which was titled “The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho,” I warned about the damages and problems wolves would cause to Yellowstone and other areas by carrying and spreading parasites and diseases over larger areas. Some of these parasites are damaging not only to wild and domestic animals, but can also be dangerous to humans. One of these parasites is Echinococcous Granulosus and Echinococcus M. Since 1993 I have been working to tell people what I have learned from about 50 years of research on the characteristics, habits and behavior of Russian wolves. From that research I came to the conclusion that one of the most serious consequences of bring wolves into the US would be the wolves carrying and spreading around damaging/dangerous parasites and diseases. I did my best to explain this in my book titled, “Wolves in Russia – Anxiety Through the Ages” edited by Dr. Valerius Geist. Details about my book are in my web site: wolvesinrussia.com.

After several years effort, I finally recently obtained help from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Parasitic Research Center in Beltsville, MD. This research center will try to conduct research on the blood taken from wolves in our western states. Oneparasite they will be researching is to determine if wolves carry and spread the parasite Neospora Caninum around. It is established that coyotes and dogs carry this damaging parasite.

I remember that about two years ago there was a report about one wolf carrying Echinococcus Granulosus in Montana.

Much more research is needed about the danger wolves bring to our environment. Some of the parasites carried by wolves are dangerous to humans.(emphasis added)

Around this same time that Will Graves posted his comments, he contacted me by email and asked if I could somehow be of assistance to him in obtaining blood samples from wolves taken during the Idaho and Montana wolf hunts. The word went out quickly and hopefullyGraves gets what he needs to help him in his research. This can become extremely valuable information for all of us.

In the meantime, Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus University of Calgary and Dr. Charles Kay, of Utah State University, who holds degrees in wildlife ecology, environmental studies and wildlife biology, exchanged thoughts on the discovery of worms in Yellowstone wolves in emails I received.

Well, Charles? What else is new? What did we warn about, how we were censored as alarmists………………………
And yes, a colleague assured us that all that is not a problem for us, but for some native types. Nothing to worry about, really. Remember how, early on, we put out a warning – do not kick dry wolf feces or poke about in such looking for evidence of food habits. Do not handle wolf feces as it will disturb the tiny Echinococcus eggs that float up like little dust cloud to envelop you, and you are very likely to ingest some of that “dust”. This know-how, which we older Canadian types carried away from our parasitogy lessons was poo-hood by some American colleagues. Wolves are after all, harmless! Remember the question we posed: is it really such a great idea completing ecosystems when the progression is herbivores, carnivores, finally diseases and parasites?

It is not my intention nor that of Drs. Geist and Kay to attempt to instill unnecessary fear in people but to educate, as it was back in the day before wolf reintroduction. There are very important lessons and warnings that all should heed and take into consideration when in the woods or maybe even in your own back yard.

Dr. Geist emailed me the other day and asked me if I would be kind enough to post this information so that anyone and everyone will be aware of the potential for some very serious health issues.

Urgent: could you make a point of it that now, that we know that the majority of wolves are infected with Echinococcus, that all hunters control their curiosity and not poke about in wolf or coyote feces to find out what these predators ate. these feces are saturated with tiny, lightweight Echinococcus eggs that rise like dust plume from the disturbed feces and envelop the poking hunter. If the air-born eggs are ingested, the an infection is possible, and having Echinococcus cysts grow inside oneself is not a desirable condition. Trust me!

He followed that up with more information about the dangers.

As to the pathogenicity of Echinococcus granulosus: Yes, I noticed that Foayt, leaning on Raup’s research in Alaska, toned down the dangers from this northern form. My understanding based on what we learned from an old, experienced parasitologist at the University of British Columbia is that it’s nothing to fool around with. It’s serious! In my career as a biologist in touch with the north, I have heard nothing else. I have not, however, done a recent literature search. Foayte’s assessment may be on even though it conflicts with mine. Either way, getting an Echinococcus cyst of any kind is no laughing matter as it can grow not only on the liver or the lungs, but also in the brain. And then it’s fatal.

There is however, another much more alarming angle. Echinococcus multilocularis is a nightmare, and much more virulent than Echinococcus granulosus of any strain. We cannot encapsulate this cyst, and it grows and buds off like a cancer infecting different parts of the body incessantly. Were some of the wolves infected with multilocularis? Coyotes and foxes carry it and it has been spreading. Do canids in Idaho, Montana, etc. have it? It’s found in Alberta. Regardless, now is the time to send out an SOS to ALL outdoor users. Hold your curiosity in check, do not poke into the feces of wolves, coyotes and foxes. If you do you will release clouds of Echinococcus eggs which will envelop you, and you may ingest the eggs, bring the eggs home and endanger your family. This is nothing new to me and I have lived with this constraint on my curiosity for over 40 years. This is just a know how that maintains your personal and your family’s safety. Also, never feed uncooked offal to your dog as it may become infected with Echinococcus and infect you and your family. Echinococcus cysts love to be in lung and liver, and if consumed by dogs you have a health hazard on your hands. And such cysts now grow in deer and elk where you live. Somebody should take a second look searching out Echinococcus multilocularis.

You and I probably have no idea in the world whether these worms exist in the woods we hunt, trap, hike, etc. but good advice given by Dr. Geist should tell us it’s not something we should mess around with. Squelch the curiosity to dig in the poop and just assume there could be hidden danger.

I want to take a moment to thank Will Graves, Dr. Val Geist and Dr. Charles Kay for caring enough about the rest of us to be willing to share their findings and experiences.

•    Gear: Clothes, utility tools, ATV’s…
•    Favorite weapons: guns, bows, sticks, stones…
•    Best Duck Blind or Hide…
•    You, family or friends dressed for the hunt…
•    Where you hunt

All I need is a digital picture in any PC compatible format and a description of the picture.  You can make the description as long or short as you would like.  If there is a story behind the picture we would love to hear about it.

Send Pictures to:

Todd Krater
U.S. Hunting Today
Managing Editor
todd@ushuntingtoday.com

Note: If you want a picture posted and do not have a digital copy I would be willing to scan it for you.  Please contact me for details.

US Hunting Today reserves the right to refuse any picture for any reason as well as edit it where appropriate.

In a narrow win, the Senate Finance Committee passed a Committee Substitute of SB 460 on Tuesday, June 30. The bill moves to the Senate Floor for full vote on July 8, 2009.

IT IS URGENT FOR EVERYONE TO CALL SENATORS AND OPPOSE THIS BILL. CALL THE NC GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN RALEIGH AT (919) 733-4111 AND ASK FOR YOUR SENATOR.

Or go to this link to find the full Senate Membership list of phone numbers and email:

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/members/reports/room-phone.pl?Chamber=Senate&viewType=normal

http://tinyurl.com/opkolu

* Amendments and revisions to SB 460 ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. Commercial breeder is now
defined as someone who owns 15 or more intact females of breeding age and 30 or more puppies. The bill exempts kennels that operate for the purpose of boarding or training hunting, sporting, herding, show, or working dogs. The language in this exemption does not specifically include an exemption for breeding these dogs.

* Exemptions are NOT A GUARANTEE for future protection. HSUS has proven they will continue to lobby for increasingly restrictive legislation. This is the step or incremental method of gaining power over breeding and owning dogs.

* SB 460 continues to allow for inspections and searches of all private property at any time.

* SB 460 allows for immediate seizure of animals for those who are not in compliance.

* The requirement for annual veterinary certification of suitable health for breeding is very vague. Certification could require anything from routine physical exam to an expensive panel of blood tests and x-rays. There are no standardized, specific laboratory tests or specialized reproductive examination procedures that are suitable for assessing the health status of bitches for breeding.

* No other species has this pre-breeding regulation in place. This provision only serves to make breeding dogs more expensive and more complicated. The decision to breed or not breed a dog should remain at the discretion of the owner and not become a legislative mandate.

* SB 460 is a waste of taxpayers’ money at a time when the State and Department of Agriculture cannot afford costly, ineffective new programs.
GOT RIGHTS? URGE YOUR SENATOR TO VOTE NO TO SB 460.

PLEASE CROSS POST WIDELY.

HSUS worked with Sen. Davis to introduce this legislation after dogs were seized from a breeder in Wayne County. For his assistance with the raid, Wayne County animal control director, Justin Scally, was rewarded by HSUS with a job within their organization. Scally will relocate to Gaithersburg MD to oversee a newly created HSUS task force.

HSUS would have our legislators believe that ALL breeders in North Carolina need state supervision and that substandard breeding kennels are rampant throughout our state. This is NOT TRUE. SB460 is not based on facts or need; it is based on emotion and is part of a nationwide campaign by HSUS to pass restrictive legislation on dog breeders. To date HSUS bills have been introduced in 32 states; 18 have died, 9 are still pending, and only 5 passed. This legislative campaign is about CONTROL, not about animal welfare. HSUS has a well documented history of opposing all purposeful breeding of dogs.

** TALKING POINTS **

* Bill supporters claim that small hobby breeders and hunters will not be affected. This is not true. Supporters claim the only reason to have 15 females is for mass producing puppies, i.e. continually breeding each female. Also not true. The bill supporters are activists, NOT dog breeders and have no firsthand knowledge of building and maintaining a breeding program or maintaining a strong hunting pack.

* The bill is so vague it could require anyone who breeds one litter to be licensed.

* Bill supporters will use photos showing the worst possible conditions in an attempt to create a wave of emotion strong enough to carry the bill forward. High emotion makes for bad laws and SB 460 is no exception. SB 460 will punish countless responsible breeders unnecessarily.

* Laws to insure animal welfare and to prevent animal-cruelty are already in place to protect all animals whether it is one dog or one hundred. We DO NOT NEED more laws.

* The potential exists for warrantless searches of a citizen’s home and kennel while inspecting dogs to determine if a license is required.

* A Fiscal Note on SB 460 has been provided by the Fiscal Research Division with input from NC DACS. The Department’s Animal Welfare Section estimates costs to implement a regulatory program are almost a half million dollars going forward with virtually no income. With a state budget shortfall of four billion dollars and government programs being cut, it is the height of irresponsibility to burden NCDA with this initiative.

ACTION IS NEEDED NOW! CALL AND EMAIL SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND OPPOSE SB 460:

Senator David Hoyle (Co-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 733-5734

E-mail: David.Hoyle@ncleg.net

Senator Daniel Clodfelter (Co-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 715-8331
E-mail: Daniel.Clodfelter@ncleg.net

Senator Clark Jenkins (Co-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 715-3040
E-mail: Clark.Jenkins@ncleg.net

Senator Larry Shaw (Vice-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 733-9349
E-mail: Larry.Shaw@ncleg.net

Senator Fletcher Hartsell, Jr. (Vice-Chairman)
Phone: (919) 733-7223
E-mail: Fletcher.Hartsell@ncleg.net

Senator Charles Albertson
Phone: (919) 733-5705
E-mail: Charlie.Albertson@ncleg.net

Senator Austin Allran
Phone: (919) 733-5876
E-mail: Austin.Allran@ncleg.net

Senator Tom Apodaca
Phone: (919) 733-5745
E-mail: Tom.Apodaca@ncleg.net

Senator Bob Atwater
Phone: (919) 715-3036
E-mail: Bob.Atwater@ncleg.net

Senator Philip Berger
Phone: (919) 733-5708
E-mail: Phil.Berger@ncleg.net

Senator Charlie Dannelly
Phone: (919) 733-5955
E-mail: Charlie.Dannelly@ncleg.net

Senator Eleanor Kinnaird
Phone: (919) 733-5804
E-mail: Ellie.Kinnaird@ncleg.net

Senator Floyd McKissick, Jr.
Phone: (919) 733-4599
E-mail: Floyd.McKissick@ncleg.net

Senator Joe Sam Queen
Phone: (919) 733-3460
E-mail: joesam.queen@ncleg.net

Senator David Rouzer
Phone: (919)733-5748
E-mail: David.Rouzer@ncleg.net

Senator R.C. Soles, Jr.
Phone: (919) 733-5963
E-mail: RC.Soles@ncleg.net

Senator Harris Blake
Phone: (919) 733-4809
E-mail: Harris.Blake@ncleg.net

Senator Julia Boseman
Phone: (919) 715-2525
E-mail: Julia.Boseman@ncleg.net

Senator Andrew Brock
Phone: (919) 715-0690
E-mail: Andrew.Brock@ncleg.net

Senator Harry Brown
Phone: (919) 715-3034
E-mail: Harry.Brown@ncleg.net

Senator Don East
Phone: (919) 733-5743
E-mail: Don.East@ncleg.net

Senator Tony Foriest
Phone: (919) 301-1446
E-mail: Tony.Foriest@ncleg.net

Senator Linda Garrou
Phone: (919) 733-5620
E-mail: Linda.Garrou@ncleg.net

Senator Eddie Goodall
Phone: (919) 733-7659
E-mail: Eddie.Goodall@ncleg.net

Senator Steve Goss
Phone: (919) 733-5742
E-mail: Steve.Goss@ncleg.net

Senator Neal Hunt
Phone: (919) 733-5850
E-mail: Neal.Hunt@ncleg.net

Senator Martin Nesbitt, Jr.
Phone: (919) 715-3001
E-mail: Martin.Nesbitt@ncleg.net

Senator Jean Preston
Phone: (919) 733-5706
E-mail: Jean.Preston@ncleg.net

Senator William Purcell
Phone: (919) 733-5953
E-mail: William.Purcell@ncleg.net

Senator Tony Rand
Phone: (919) 733-9892
E-mail: Tony.Rand@ncleg.net

Senator Bob Rucho
Phone: (919) 733-5655
E-mail: Bob.Rucho@ncleg.net

Senator Josh Stein
Phone: (919)715-6400
E-mail: Josh.Stein@ncleg.net

Senator Richard Stevens
Phone: (919) 733-5653
E-mail: Richard.Stevens@ncleg.net

Senator A.B. Swindell
Phone: (919) 715-3030
E-mail: AB.Swindell@ncleg.net

Senator Jerry Tillman
Phone: (919) 733-5870
E-mail: Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net

Senator David Weinstein
Phone: (919) 733-5651
E-mail: David.Weinstein@ncleg.net

BILL SYNOPSIS

SB 695 Restricts tethering to 3 hours in a 24-hour period. Mandates all tethers to be minimum 15-feet. Only exempts dogs while actively hunting or herding if the act of tethering is absolutely necessary. Allows counties, cities to reduce time of permissable tethering.

** TALKING POINTS **

* The goal of the anti-tethering lobby is to spread enough misinformation about tethering until all people automatically believe that tethering in any form is animal cruelty.

* The more restrictions the animal rights lobbying groups, such as the Coalition to Unchain Dogs, PETA, and HSUS, can devise to upset animal management practices the more difficult it becomes for professionals, hobbyists, hunters, and dog owners in general to continue their pursuits.

* SB 695 would discriminate among North Carolina citizens on socio-economic grounds. Those not in a position to put up chain link or other fencing, or relocate will be deprived of their pets.

* Tethering is a primary means of control and training of hunting dogs; the State should not regulate methods of containment which are better left to the discretion of responsible dog owners and hunters.

* Tethering can be the safest method of controlling a hard to contain animal. There are dogs that can escape from anything. They can chew through fencing and even chain link, break out windows, open doors, climb or dig under fences, and destroy wire and plastic shipping crates in seconds. These dogs can only be contained securely (and humanely) with a well thought out tether system.

* Setting time limits for tethering is unenforceable without stakeout and surveillance of owner’s property. Time limits will be used by spiteful neighbors to antagonize dog owners.

* Setting time limits discriminates against people who work and prefer to leave the dog outside and denies their animal access to the outdoors for the work day.

Additional talking points and contact information are available on the SAOVA website

http://www.saova.org/northcarolina.html

ACTION IS NEEDED NOW! CONTACT SENATE JUDICIARY I AND OPPOSE SB 695:

Sen. Martin Nesbitt, Jr. (Chair)

Phone: (919) 715-3001

Martin.Nesbitt@ncleg.net

Sen. R.C. Soles, Jr. (Vice Chair)

Phone: (919) 733-5963

RC.Soles@ncleg.net

Sen. Peter Brunstetter (Vice Chair)

Phone: (919) 733-7850

Peter.Brunstetter@ncleg.net

Sen. Daniel Clodfelter (Vice Chair)

Phone: (919( 715-8331

Daniel.Clodfelter@ncleg.net

Sen. Josh Stein (Vice Chair)

Phone: (919) 715-6400

Josh.Stein@ncleg.net

Sen. Charlie Albertson

Phone: (919) 713-5705

Charlie.Albertson@ncleg.net

Sen. Philip Berger

Phone: (919) 733-5708

Phil.Berger@ncleg.net

Sen. Andrew Brock

Phone: (919) 715-0690

Andrew.Brock@ncleg.net

Sen. Harry Brown

Phone: (919) 715-3034

Harry.Brown@ncleg.net

Sen. Debbie Clary

Phone: (919) 715-3038

Debbie.Clary@ncleg.net

Sen. Ellie Kinnaird

Phone: (919) 733-5804

Ellie.Kinnaird@ncleg.net

Sen. Malcolm Graham

Phone: (919) 733-5650

Malcolm.Graham@ncleg.net

Sen. David Hoyle

Phone: (919) 733-5734

David.Hoyle@ncleg.net

Sen. Clark Jenkins

Phone: (919) 715-3040

Clark.Jenkins@ncleg.net

Sen. Floyd McKissick, Jr.

Phone: (919) 733-4599

Floyd.McKissick@ncleg.net

Sen. Tony Rand

Phone: (919) 733-9892

Tony.Rand@ncleg.net

Sen. David Rouzer

Phone: (919)733-5748

David.Rouzer@ncleg.net

Sen. Richard Stevens

Phone: (919) 733-5653

Richard.Stevens@ncleg.net

Sen. Jerry Tillman

Phone: (919) 733-5870

Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net

SPONSORS:

Sen. Linda Garrou

Phone: (919) 733-5620

Linda.Garrou@ncleg.net

Sen. Don Vaughan

Phone: (919)733-5856

Don.Vaughan@ncleg.net

PLEASE SHARE THIS MESSAGE WIDELY.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance – http://saova.org

Issue lobbying and working to identify and elect supportive legislators

SB 460 Commercial Dog Breeders introduced by Senator Don Davis (D, Wayne/Pitt/Greene) is scheduled to be heard in the Commerce Committee on Thursday, April 30 at 9:00 AM, room 1027 LB

BILL SYNOPSIS

SB 460 defines as commercial anyone who has custody or control of more than 15 female dogs over the age of four months at any time. The bill establishes standards for care at commercial breeding operations, including requirements which will be written by the NC Department of Agriculture at a later date, for exercise, veterinary care and record keeping. The bill mandates that commercial breeders cannot breed female dogs less than 18 months or more than eight years of age. SB 460 mandates that an adult female dog cannot be bred without an annual certification from a licensed veterinarian that the dog is in suitable health for breeding.

** TALKING POINTS **

* The bills define as commercial anyone maintaining 15 females during the span of 12 months – does not say intact females, does not define what age is considered adult.

* Thousands of North Carolina citizens breed dogs without creating problems and they do not require state inspections. This is reactive legislation to the recent closure of a substandard kennel. The kennel closure and removal of dogs is evidence that current law adequately dealt with the situation.

* The potential exists for warrantless searches of a citizen’s home and kennel while inspecting dogs to determine if license is required.

* SB 460 assumes that an owner of 15 or more dogs is not capable of managing and maintaining their animals in good health without state intervention. It is wrong to use a numerical basis to begin excessive regulation of dog breeders; numbers do not correlate to quality of care. Laws for animal welfare and to prevent animal-cruelty are already in place to protect all animals whether it is one dog or one hundred.

* The requirement for annual veterinary certification of suitable health for breeding is very vague. Certification could require anything from routine physical exam to an expensive panel of blood tests and x-rays. There are no standardized, specific laboratory tests or specialized reproductive examination procedures that are suitable for assessing the health status of bitches for breeding. No other species has this pre-breeding regulation in place. This provision only serves to make breeding dogs more expensive and more complicated. The decision to breed or not breed a dog should remain at the discretion of the owner and not become a legislative mandate.

* Bill supporters claim that small hobby breeders will not be affected. This is not true. Supporters claim the only reason to have 15 females is for mass producing puppies, i.e. continually breeding each female. Also not true. The bill supporters are activists, NOT dog breeders and have no firsthand knowledge of building or maintaining a breeding program. It is quite possible for someone to have 15 females without constantly producing puppies.

* Promoted with the usual anti-puppy mill hype and emotion, the bill focuses on labeling dog breeders, i.e., commercial=puppy mill to justify this over-the-top legislation. The term puppy mill has been promoted by animal rights activists in the same manner as a racial slur to cast a negative picture on the whole industry of breeding dogs; the goal is to eventually make all the words interchangeable, commercial=puppy mill=breeder.

* The cost to dog owners/breeders for construction of commercial grade facilities to meet state requirements will be enormous. It is irresponsible for legislators to force this expense on citizens who are already financially stressed in the current recession.

* There is no hard evidence that substandard kennel conditions are rampant throughout the state. It is pure conjecture for anyone to discuss whether dogs are housed in adequate or substandard conditions. The North Carolina Department of Agriculture estimates 79 kennels are likely to have 15 females; however, this does not automatically correlate to those kennels being substandard and/or in need of state intervention and regulation.

* The Fiscal Note on SB 460 has been provided by the Fiscal Research Division with input from NC DACS. The Department’s Animal Welfare Section estimates costs to implement a regulatory

program are a staggering quarter of a million dollars for this year and increase to almost a half million dollars going forward with virtually no income. With a state budget shortfall in excess of three billion dollars and government programs being cut, it is the height of irresponsibility to burden NCDA with this initiative.

ACTION IS NEEDED NOW! PLEASE CALL AND EMAIL SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE AND OPPOSE SB 460:

Sen. R.C. Soles, Jr. (Chair)

Phone: (919) 733-5963

RC.Soles@ncleg.net

Sen. Floyd McKissick, Jr. (Vice Chair)

Phone: (919) 733-4599

Floyd.McKissick@ncleg.net

Sen. David Hoyle (Vice Chair)

Phone: (919) 733-5734

David.Hoyle@ncleg.net

Sen. Tony Rand (Vice Chair)

Phone: (919) 733-9892

Tony.Rand@ncleg.net

Sen. Tom Apodaca

Phone: (919) 733-5745

Tom.Apodaca@ncleg.net

Sen. Philip Berger

Phone: (919) 733-5708

Phil.Berger@ncleg.net

Sen. Doug Berger

Phone: (919) 715-8683

Doug.Berger@ncleg.net

Sen. Harris Blake

Phone: (919) 733-4809

Harris.Blake@ncleg.net

Sen. Julia Boseman

Phone: (919) 715-2525

Julia.Boseman@ncleg.net

Sen. Peter Brunstetter

Phone: (919) 733-7850

Peter.Brunstetter@ncleg.net

Sen. Debbie Clary

Phone: (919) 715-3038

Debbie.Clary@ncleg.net

Sen. Katie Dorsett

Phone: (919)715-3042

Katie.Dorsett@ncleg.net

Sen. Tony Foriest

Phone: (919) 301-1446

Tony.Foriest@ncleg.net

Sen. James Forrester

Phone: (919) 715-3050

James.Forrester@ncleg.net

Sen. Linda Garrou

Phone: (919) 733-5620

Linda.Garrou@ncleg.net

Sen. W. Edward Goodall

Phone: (919) 733-7659

Eddie.Goodall@ncleg.net

Sen. Steve Goss

Phone: (919) 733-5742

Steve.Goss@ncleg.net

Sen. Malcolm Graham

Phone: (919) 733-5650

Malcolm.Graham@ncleg.net

Sen. Neal Hunt

Phone: (919) 733-5850

Neal.Hunt@ncleg.net

Sen. Jim Jacumin

Phone: (919) 715-7823

Jim.Jacumin@ncleg.net

Sen. Clark Jenkins

Phone: (919) 715-3040

Clark.Jenkins@ncleg.net

Sen. Martin Nesbitt, Jr.

Phone: (919) 715-3001

Martin.Nesbitt@ncleg.net

Sen. William Purcell

Phone: (919) 733-5953

William.Purcell@ncleg.net

Sen. Bob Rucho

Phone: (919) 733-5655

Bob.Rucho@ncleg.net

Sen. Larry Shaw

Phone: (919) 733-9349

Larry.Shaw@ncleg.net

Sen. Josh Stein

Phone: (919)715-6400

Josh.Stein@ncleg.net

Sen. Richard Stevens

Phone: (919) 733-5653

Richard.Stevens@ncleg.net

Sen. Don Vaughan

Phone: (919)733-5856

Don.Vaughan@ncleg.net

Additional talking points and contact information are available on the SAOVA website

http://www.saova.org/northcarolina2.html and North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance [NCRAOA] http://www.ncraoa.com/alertsSB460.html

Okay, so I’m feeling a bit nasty and cynical this morning. And with that I’m taking a story and making an attempt to spin it into something bigger and more controversial than it really is but I do have a point to make.

The Charlotte Observer is reporting that finally the experimental elk herd in the Smoky Mountain National forest, near the Cataloochee Valley in North Carolina, is showing growth – something it hasn’t done since the elk were brought to this area back in 2001. At that time 52 elk were dropped off and the population has never really changed up until park authorities decided to capture about 10 bears and move them out of the area. Since that time, the number of elk has increased to around 86 and the bull to cow ratio has also changed significantly which should increase the chances of more cows giving birth to young elk.

The article clearly states that the reason for the growth is because most of the bears with a discerning appetite for baby elk have been moved.

What helped turn the static population around was the removal of black bears that were preying on the new-born calves, park spokesman Bob Miller said last week. As a result, calf survival rose in 2006 and 2007, lifting the 2005 population of 54 animals to at least 86.

So, there you have it. Proof that bears kill elk and have a negative effect on the herd. Ok, so it’s not quite that simple. Well, at least I’m willing to admit it.

I suppose I should also point out that park personnel indicated that the cow elk are learning to adapt to the habits of the predators.

In addition, Miller said, adult cows are getting smarter about coping with bears, moving away from locations bears frequent to more remote places to give birth in June and July.

It might be just as accurate to say that the adult cow elk are better adapting to their own habitat and learning where better calving areas would be. Let’s also not forget that the bear aren’t stupid. When they get hungry enough, they will also adapt and find the elk.

The point to all of this is that predators do have an impact on elk, moose and deer as examples. In this case when the elk were introduced, the numbers weren’t great enough to sustain and grow over the number of bears in the park. With man removed from the predator list within the park, the bear is top of the chain. Once the bear numbers were reduced, the elk have shown signs of growing in numbers. This is a clear indication, I would think, that management is necessary in order that to have a sustainable herd of elk, deer and moose, you have to make sure that the number of predators doesn’t get out of control.

Man has been the top dog in the food chain since the beginning of time and is still a necessary part in the balance of things. We have too many who think that man needs to be taken out of that chain and let Mother Nature take care of things. They fail to want to believe that man eating beast is part of Mother Nature’s plan. They also have lost sight of the fact that man has a right to protect themselves and their property.

I have no problem with predators. I do have a problem with allowing predators to grow unchecked while destroying game animals and private property. We have examples of this all around us and now some communities are scrambling around trying to figure out how to deal with it.

In other areas we have caring and concerned groups and individuals trying to find ways of increasing habitat for such animals as deer, moose and elk and at the same time demanding that predators be allowed to grow unchecked. It’s not an original statement to say that a habitat program is a waste of time without one that includes predator control.

With all of this said, I wonder what the future looks like for Great Smoky Mountain National Park? Time and money was spent in order to move the predator bears away from the elk herd. Officials say the bears returned but not until after the young elk had gotten bigger and better able to fend for themselves.

If the elk herd continues to grow, which is the intent of the park authorities, will it become a problem? Will there one day be too many elk? Too many bear? How long before more predator lovers will be insisting, like in Colorado, that the park will need to have wolves to make it “more natural”?

Only a matter of time.

Tom Remington

J.R. Absher, the Newshound, and I sent a couple emails back and forth this morning about what’s happening with EHD. In one of my emails, I asked J.R. if this was what he would consider a large outbreak from his years of experience in the field. What he told me was that in a previous article he mentioned that he had talked with a friend of his, Doug Markham, information officer for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, about this year’s outbreak.

My good friend Doug Markham, information officer for the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, dropped me an email over the weekend saying it’s as bad as he’s ever seen it in his 20 years with the agency.

Some especially hard-hit areas of the Volunteer State could lose half their deer to EHD this year, Markham speculated.

One other thing that J.R. mentioned was that it seemed that the EHD outbreak was following a similar path as this summer’s drought. I’ll have to do some investigating to see if I can find out if that is a common occurrence.

In the meantime, we all need to be praying for some frost and freezes to kill this thing off.

Tom Remington

These figures don’t surprise me any because I have seen similar figures before and have used them in arguments with those who toss in the face of hunters and fishermen that there are more of them than us. In their argument, they are right in that far fewer people buy hunting and fishing licenses than don’t but the bottom line has always been the public support for the activities and this, once again, proves that support is strong.

I believe that this report out of North Carolina is representative of probably every state in the Union.

Read more about this report here.

Tom Remington

Preserving the Houndsmen’s Heritage for the Next Generation in Western North Carolina and Upstate South Carolina.

If a lot of you are like me, when you read or hear the word hound, a whole array of mental images crop up in your head. I spent some time browsing around their new website in order to get a better idea of what the Houndsmen were all about. I found out it isn’t just coon dogs nor is it rabbit dogs or bear hunting dogs. It’s all about every kind of dog you can imagine that’s used in the varied hunting and outdoor sports including breeding of sporting dogs as well. Read what the website says about what they are all about.

The Appalachian Houndsmen Association is an association that was started on the basis of joining together all of our clubs from all the different hunting areas to be able to unite(sic) as one large voice to stand up and fight to protect our hunting and breeding rights. We want members from all types of dog hunting, coon hunters, big game hunters, beaglers, fox hunters and bird hunters. We need everyone to be able to make our voice heard. As our motto states “Preserving Our Hunting Heritage for the next Generation”, is a large and bold undertaking and this cannot be accomplished by one person or one club or one group of hunters. Together as a united group we can fight and be heard.

The reason for a united front comes because of the increased pressure from anti-hunting and animal rights groups. I see the AHA is taking action to speak up in support of what they do and the long time heritage associated with it. More and more people are learning as have the AHA that the only ones that are going to fight for what you believe in is you, so they are banding together.

One of the issues that AHA is involved in is support of a bill in South Carolina that would permit the use of dogs in hunting and training for bears. That bill is H3258. There has been opposition to this bill by some anti-hunting and animal rights groups and leaders of the AHA are encouraging its members to contact all the South Carolina representatives and Senate Wildlife Committee members.

There’s more to the Appalachian Houndsmen Association than just getting people together to fight for rights. Their website is soliciting much needed membership to help the cause. There’s also a busy schedule of events including a lot of shows and qualifying competitions and they have plans to start a youth moment within the organization called “PUPS“.

It is clear to me that this new group has a firm grasp and understanding of the importance of hunting as part of our American heritage. They want to work hard to guarantee that heritage to the next generation and they need your help. I would suggest that first you visit their website and learn more about them. There you will find contact information and how you can become a member and get involved. Don’t wait until it’s too late and above all else, don’t wait and let someone else do all the work. Get involved.

Tom Remington