Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:06:46 +0900 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
William Schnell wrote:
>
> I expect their findings would apply to domestic livestock, and not
> necessarily usable for wild animals.
> Only personal knowledge on this subject is that sickly (flea-ridden) city
> pets (both dogs and cats) when moved to a country environment lost their
> parasites and looked to be in good health. The cats ate mice and chipmunks -
> saw that, don't know what the dogs ate. In the house they were fed the same
> diet.
> Would be interested in the relative burden of parasites between domestic and
> wild animals.
Generally wild animals are full of parasites, as are farm
dogs. Our dogs didn't have fleas, but did get lots of ticks.
Saw a story recently about a wolf killed in Wisconsin. They
figured it was a real, wild wolf, not an escaped pet because
it was full of parasites, while generally house dogs are de
wormed so are cleaner.
|
|
|