The tapeworm doesn’t seem to affect coyotes but its feces contain the parasite’s eggs and when rodents ingest some of the droppings, they develop a growth on their liver that “kind of behaves like a cancer,” said Dr. Stan Houston, an infectious disease expert at the U of Alberta. 

It has the same effect in humans and 17 cases were diagnosed between 2013 and 2020. 

Although the risk of being infected is low, there are simple precautions (such as washing garden produce and deworming your dogs) to lower it further.

For more, see the Aug. 19 edition of abpdaily.com.

The post Warning issued about coyote parasite appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Kathryn McGarry, Ontario minister of natural resources and forestry, spoke to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s 2016 annual meeting to update farmers on the status of the regulations covering the protection of the Algonquin wolves.

In June, eastern wolves in Ontario were renamed Algonquin wolves and their status was changed to threatened by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario, an arms-length body that classifies species at risk in Ontario.

The threatened status meant that the wolves had to be protected across Ontario, and the government had 90 days to respond.

The challenge is that the only way to differentiate the Algonquin wolf from coyotes is with a DNA test — which, as McGarry admitted, would be difficult.

“Yes, I know they have big teeth. You can’t ‘Just say give me your mouth and I’ll do a swab,’” she said. “This presented a problem for us.”

The government has since set two years to draft a recovery plan for the Algonquin wolves, she said, with input from groups such as the OFA and scientists.

In the meantime, the hunting of the wolves is restricted in Algonquin Park and in the areas around Killarney Provincial Park, Queen Elizabeth II Wildlands and the Kawartha Highlands Signature Site.

The wolves, and the coyotes that look the same, can still be hunted in areas outside the restricted zone.

There is also an exemption for landowners and farmers in restricted areas who can still protect livestock if there is a health and safety risk.

— John Greig is a field editor for Glacier FarmMedia at Ailsa Craig, Ont. Follow him at @JGreig on Twitter.

The post Restricted zone tightens for Algonquin wolf hunting appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

It was defeated because of concerns about the sustainability of this type of coverage from the government’s coffers, and because coyote control was something that could be managed.

However, another resolution called on ABP to lobby the provincial government to provide predator compensation from coyotes. This motion was carried and will be addressed.

The post Coyote compensation considered appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

A University of Alberta study that tracked wolves — and what they eat — found cattle made up 45 per cent of the predator’s diet during the grazing season.

The study tracked wolf predation patterns in southwestern Alberta — from the Pincher Creek area north of Waterton Lakes National Park to the edge of Kananaskis Country — where ranches and the territory of the carnivores overlap.

“Wolves are the real culprits and have been the biggest problem as it relates to beef producers,” said Mark Boyce, a wildlife ecologist and professor of biological sciences.

“When we began our project, ranchers said they believed they were losing some stock to wolves, but through cluster methods, we were able to identify where the livestock went missing and what was taking it.”

Boyce and his research team tracked wolves and their diets over several years using GPS tracking. When packs were clustered in an area for several hours, field researchers would go to the site afterwards to see what the wolves had been feeding on and to collect scat for analysis.

The 45 per cent figure applies to cattle killed by wolves and does not include anything from boneyards (which was classed as scavenging). Deer, elk, and small prey animals (such as bobcat or beaver) ranked behind cattle as prey during the grazing season.

During the non-grazing season, cattle slip to the third most important prey after deer and elk, Boyce said during a recent Beef Cattle Research Centre webinar.

The study also found other large carnivores are not as much of a problem as wolves in southwestern Alberta. Cougars like llamas, but will rarely kill beef cattle. Grizzly bears will occasionally kill cattle, but favour boneyards, which they regularly visit.

Boneyards are permitted in Alberta as long as no one complains and they became more prevalent after BSE hit the province in 2003. But experts say they have numerous drawbacks compared to composting deadstock (see story on page 9) and that includes attracting predators.

“They are a bad idea because it brings large carnivores in proximity to ranching operations,” Boyce said in a followup email interview.

“We do not know if developing a taste for cattle makes wolves more likely to kill cattle, but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis.”

The current wolf population in Alberta is between 6,000 and 7,000 animals.

The provincial government has conducted a controversial wolf cull program in the northwestern part of the province, something critics — including Boyce — say is ineffective because eliminating wolves in one area eventually results in higher populations as females will have more pups when there is open territory nearby.

But the situation for ranchers is different, said Boyce.

“There are wolf packs that are well behaved and do not prey on cattle,” he said. “These packs should not be culled because they maintain territories and exclude other wolves. Bad behaviour cannot be corrected, however, and generally predator-control agents agree that the best strategy is to remove the entire pack.”

Wolves may be hunted without a licence during all seasons on privately owned land by the owner or occupant, and on public land by a person authorized to keep livestock on that land. Trapping is allowed on a seasonal basis.

“Yes, the population will rebound and vacated territories will quickly (attract) new wolves (and) it’s a crap shoot as to whether these new wolves will be well behaved,” said Boyce. “But good husbandry can reduce the chances that wolves will develop bad behaviours.”

Ranchers who lose cattle to wolves, cougars, or bears can receive compensation funded by revenues from hunting and fishing licences, paid by the Alberta Conservation Association and the provincial government.

“If you have a confirmed loss due to predation for any animal except for coyotes, 100 per cent of the market value is reimbursed,” said Boyce.

In the case of a probable loss from predation, only 50 per cent of the market value is reimbursed. There is no compensation for missing animals.

Southwestern Alberta accounted for 37 per cent of provincial claims, even though the area is only three per cent of the province’s land base.

The post Wolves filling up on cattle in southwestern Alberta appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Our governments are struggling as to what to do and the most recent survey on wildlife damage by Alberta Beef Producers and the Miistakis Institute shows a high percentage of farmers impacted by wildlife.

The survey was meant for as many producers as possible whether they were having wildlife issues or not. It was very comprehensive and covered ungulates such as elk or deer; predators such as coyotes or cougars; and damage to grain from primarily waterfowl and ungulates. More than 80 per cent had damage from deer and elk; 74 per cent had damage from predators; and coyotes caused half the predator damage in Alberta even though they are not considered a predator like mountain lions and wolves are. It accounted for an overall loss of about one per cent of the entire cattle population, which is substantial.

Governments need to do something regarding compensation and relaxing hunting laws — wildlife has never had it so good.

There is no doubt most rural farm people like wildlife and enjoy seeing the odd moose, elk, or bear (maybe not grizzly) at their farm. Many of my beef clients over the years were serious hunters, but with that came a respect for the wildlife. They accepted a minor amount of damage because in the populated areas of the province, their farms are where the habitat is.

Any of these interactions are good as long as they are in moderation and I stress moderation. The survey showed producers will tolerate some losses, but a few have extreme losses. When we hear of tons of grass or bales eaten and destroyed by a large herd of elk or healthy calves being picked off by wolves (and sometimes cougars), this is affecting a producer’s livelihood and we need solutions.

It is because of the amount of cleared land and forage that has been produced that has allowed especially the ungulates to flourish. It is the environmentally conscious producers who tend to look after things such as riparian areas that attract more wildlife. With more deer and elk, their predators have followed close behind.

Solutions such as fencing feed yards and scaring the wildlife off help, but many of these solutions are just temporary. When wildlife are healthy their reproductive rates go up and overpopulation becomes the major problem. Whether it is too many elk coming out of the Suffield range or national parks being overgrazed, the issue really comes down to population control. Harvesting is the all-encompassing answer to many of the problems — whether by allowing extra hunting or harvesting by roundup. There are some areas where populations should be managed by trained biologists who have the power to make the right call.

In the interim, compensation losses for lost standing forage hay and grain will help. But if populations are high, the losses will continue year after year after year. Moving a herd of elk or deer off your place, for instance, just drives them on to the neighbours. Since predators follow large ungulate herds, producers have, by default, two problems.

One article I read talked about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ coyotes. Some stick to gophers and mice and so don’t bother cattle, and since coyotes are very territorial you want to keep a good family of coyotes on your farm.

Some provinces compensate for coyote losses, but others — such as Alberta and Saskatchewan — don’t. Agriculture loss from wildlife varies greatly across the provinces (in Ontario, raccoons and rats are an issue) so each province should develop their own compensation programs.

As a veterinarian, the wildlife interactions I frequently hear about are cattle injuries or deaths from predators. In these cases, we need to verify the cause of death. In the past there was compensation for deaths, but nothing for treatment of injured livestock. These are specific things that need to be looked at in developing compensation packages going forward. It serves no one if vigilante warfare takes place because frustrated producers feel they have nowhere to turn.

While disease transmission is quite low because of species differences, it still is a two-way street — both agriculture to wildlife and wildlife to agriculture. With diseases such as brucellosis, tuberculosis, and chronic wasting disease in elk, as well as specific parasitic diseases, we need to be ever vigilant and have good surveillance systems.

I know many urban dwellers want all wildlife preserved, but the analogy of their own pet dog or cat being picked off by a cougar or their garden being destroyed by a bunch of deer describes how farmers sometimes feel. And for some farmers, their livelihood can be severely diminished by wildlife damage.

Compensation programs must be easy to administer, have black and white answers, and offer timely payments. Governments need to look at sustainable programs to provide producers with enough compensation for some losses and population reduction where warranted, yet still have people catch that glimpse of wildlife. Catching or relocating a problem bear is much different than catching and relocating a large herd of elk.

Perhaps harvesting for the food bank should be looked at. It seems that relocating large groups may just move the problem and unbalance the ecosystem somewhere else. I would think with the damage to our vehicles and injuries we incur in encounters with wildlife (especially deer and moose) that insurance companies would welcome a reduction of deer, especially in populated areas.

Striking the right balance is what we are after. I haven’t even talked about migratory birds. Generally there is compensation but not when winter swath grazing crop is destroyed. The Miistakis Institute survey indicated damage by birds was a distant third on the list to ungulates and predators.

The rules for all wildlife programs need to be fine tuned, kept current, reflect the main issues in each province, and offer compensation or assistance when warranted.

This will keep agriculture in harmony with wildlife and protect wildlife for future generations to experience. National parks and diversified livestock farms are still great places to get fairly close to wildlife. (Be careful though, as wildlife is just that — wild — and we don’t want any human injuries.)

Let’s all push for a fair resolution to this. The entire survey report is on the Alberta Beef Producers website. At the very least, read the 10-page summary for a better understanding of what is happening.

The post We need a better approach to dealing with wildlife appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.