"Red Wolf" restoration scandal

[ron.sutherland2]

While the protected wolf is doing fine and dandy in Algonquin, the moose and deer are disappearing at a drastic rate, i am glad i know people who dont have to worry about the "protected" status and will shoot every wolf they see in and around Algonquin.

You appear to be arguing that a red wolf close relative can sustain some level of illegal poaching and still maintain its genetic identity, despite zero active coyote management by the government. That is very encouraging for the red wolf situation, thank you! As for the deer and moose, do you have any statistics on that to back up your statement?

 

[ron.sutherland2]

We all know the Government will do whatever they want to do. Fine so be it.

Leave the private property owners alone. Allow them to kill any predator that is impacting their enjoyment of their land.

Pretty simple solution to me.

In all seriousness, would you be ok with that policy if it also applied to national forests, military bases, etc? Looking at the big picture, that might almost work, at least in some parts of the southeast US. Otherwise, the big issue is that Alligator River NWR, while huge by most standards, is too small for a self-sustaining population of red wolves. Since the red wolf needs basically no special habitat management other than protection from being shot, and since it does just fine in agricultural areas, it seems like a cheaper and easier solution would be to pay large blocks of farmers to host the wolves on their land. Anyone open to that?

 

[darenative]

Let me guess, you are also wanting Pitman Robertson funds to make payments to the property owners.

 

[dobber]

Actually no i do not mention poaching, this is where reading bits and pieces of information will mislead you. I lived there, in some of the townships around Algonquin. Which stats/facts would you believe though, some of yours have been brought into question and you dismiss them.
I also didn't mention red wolf since we dont have any up here either

 

[QBD2]

In all seriousness, would you be ok with that policy if it also applied to national forests, military bases, etc? Looking at the big picture, that might almost work, at least in some parts of the southeast US. Otherwise, the big issue is that Alligator River NWR, while huge by most standards, is too small for a self-sustaining population of red wolves. Since the red wolf needs basically no special habitat management other than protection from being shot, and since it does just fine in agricultural areas, it seems like a cheaper and easier solution would be to pay large blocks of farmers to host the wolves on their land. Anyone open to that?

The cheapest and easiest solution, is to pull any all and taxpayer/sportsman funded support.

The cheapest, easiest, most common sense solution is to let an inferior species(I say species in the loosest sense) die off. That's mother nature's way.

History is loaded with extinct species, and there's a reason for that. Just my .02

 

[Mike Noles aka conman]

Your video was not accidentally deleted, Ron. You double posted it and I chose to delete this one. Choose your poison.

 

[Mike Noles aka conman]

In all seriousness, would you be ok with that policy if it also applied to national forests, military bases, etc? Looking at the big picture, that might almost work, at least in some parts of the southeast US. Otherwise, the big issue is that Alligator River NWR, while huge by most standards, is too small for a self-sustaining population of red wolves. Since the red wolf needs basically no special habitat management other than protection from being shot, and since it does just fine in agricultural areas, it seems like a cheaper and easier solution would be to pay large blocks of farmers to host the wolves on their land. Anyone open to that?

How about protection from vehicles, farm machinery and imposing NPOs? The zoos and USFWS management have killed far more of the human developed animal than any gun shot or trap. Just go to their stud book and resource management books. Hundreds have been "euthanized" to further the experiment. That's the part of "anthropogenic mortality" that is NEVER discussed or pointed out by the liberal, tree hugging media and NPOs.
What you're proposing (paying to host the wolves) is another ridiculous way that you guys in the NPOs choose to waste taxpayer money as I'm certain that none of you would tip the till to help with that kind of cost. Heck, I'm in favor of just leave them as is, eliminate the program and protection and let's just let nature take it's course. That's the least cost proposal. According to most recent studies, the zoo built animal would be off of the horizon in less than 8 years.

 

[Pirate96]

How about protection from vehicles, farm machinery and imposing NPOs? The zoos and USFWS management have killed far more of the human developed animal than any gun shot or trap. Just go to their stud book and resource management books. Hundreds have been "euthanized" to further the experiment. That's the part of "anthropogenic mortality" that is NEVER discussed or pointed out by the liberal, tree hugging media and NPOs.
What you're proposing (paying to host the wolves) is another ridiculous way that you guys in the NPOs choose to waste taxpayer money as I'm certain that none of you would tip the till to help with that kind of cost. Heck, I'm in favor of just leave them as is, eliminate the program and protection and let's just let nature take it's course. That's the least cost proposal. According to most recent studies, the zoo built animal would be off of the horizon in less than 8 years.

What else needs to be said?

Perfect solution for all involved by someone with direct understanding and knowledge in the real world of "Red Wolves"!

 

[Mike Noles aka conman]

Here's some heavy reading that I've posted before. Note the litter dates and euthanized dates, especially early in the book.

https://www.fws.gov/redwolf/Reviewdocuments/RedWolf_Studbook2013.pdf

 

[bigten]

Actually no i do not mention poaching, this is where reading bits and pieces of information will mislead you. I lived there, in some of the townships around Algonquin. Which stats/facts would you believe though, some of yours have been brought into question and you dismiss them.
I also didn't mention red wolf since we dont have any up here either

Isn't it just amazing the spin that some have the ability of applying to a simple statement? It shows the depth at which these people will go to in their attempts to forward their corrupt agenda.

 

[ron.sutherland2]

Isn't it just amazing the spin that some have the ability of applying to a simple statement? It shows the depth at which these people will go to in their attempts to forward their corrupt agenda.

I'll walk through the logic with you: 1. he said that the wolves are thriving, agreeing with the papers that I posted that said hybridization was under control, 2. he said he had contacts of some sort that are still shooting the wolves. Therefore, it follows that if those two statements are both true, the wolves at Algonquin are prospering and not hybridizing themselves out of existence, even though some people are still shooting them. Not spin, just logic.

 

[bigten]

I'll walk through the logic with you: 1. he said that the wolves are thriving, agreeing with the papers that I posted that said hybridization was under control, 2. he said he had contacts of some sort that are still shooting the wolves. Therefore, it follows that if those two statements are both true, the wolves at Algonquin are prospering and not hybridizing themselves out of existence, even though some people are still shooting them. Not spin, just logic.

I am fully aware of what was said. I also am cognizant enough to understand your attempt to spin it in a manner differently than intended. All in the attempt to further your agenda.

 

[ron.sutherland2]

let's say I post some pictures of hunters killing, dressing, and eating deer, and then make some wild claims about how the deer are being wiped out by vicious and ruthless hunters, perhaps flying a plane around an environmentalist or animal rights conference or two telling people to "google the great deer killers scandal". Let's say I also point out that the NC Wildlife Resources Commission is perniciously doing what it can to promote hunting and recruit and train even more hunters, using money that could be going instead to buying precious deer habitat. What would you say to counter those claims? You'd point out that there is an obvious difference between eating deer and causing the deer population to collapse. And then, in defense of hunting (which as I've said before I'm not opposed to, this is just a metaphor), you'd likely also make some claims about how hunting is necessary to keep the deer population under control, that without hunting the deer would eat all of their food and starve, etc. etc.

On the other hand, if someone here posts a picture of a coyote or wolf with a fawn in its mouth, there seems to be this general knee jerk reaction to assume that a wildlife disaster is happening right before your eyes. And I've also noticed a strong tendency to sensationalize the way that wild carnivores kill their prey, to make it as unsavory and barbaric-sounding as possible.

My point is that deer hunters and wild carnivores are pretty much in the same boat, you're both helping to control the deer, you both like the way deer taste (as do I, I'll admit) and you both come to grips with killing other animals in order to feed yourselves and your children. Even with coyotes and a handful of wolves, there are still plenty of deer to go around, and the perceived "us or them"/"our way of life is in danger" rhetoric seems way overblown.

 

[Mike Noles aka conman]

let's say I post some pictures of hunters killing, dressing, and eating deer, and then make some wild claims about how the deer are being wiped out by vicious and ruthless hunters, perhaps flying a plane around an environmentalist or animal rights conference or two telling people to "google the great deer killers scandal". Let's say I also point out that the NC Wildlife Resources Commission is perniciously doing what it can to promote hunting and recruit and train even more hunters, using money that could be going instead to buying precious deer habitat. What would you say to counter those claims? You'd point out that there is an obvious difference between eating deer and causing the deer population to collapse. And then, in defense of hunting (which as I've said before I'm not opposed to, this is just a metaphor), you'd likely also make some claims about how hunting is necessary to keep the deer population under control, that without hunting the deer would eat all of their food and starve, etc. etc.

On the other hand, if someone here posts a picture of a coyote or wolf with a fawn in its mouth, there seems to be this general knee jerk reaction to assume that a wildlife disaster is happening right before your eyes. And I've also noticed a strong tendency to sensationalize the way that wild carnivores kill their prey, to make it as unsavory and barbaric-sounding as possible.

My point is that deer hunters and wild carnivores are pretty much in the same boat, you're both helping to control the deer, you both like the way deer taste (as do I, I'll admit) and you both come to grips with killing other animals in order to feed yourselves and your children. Even with coyotes and a handful of wolves, there are still plenty of deer to go around, and the perceived "us or them"/"our way of life is in danger" rhetoric seems way overblown.

Another good analogy. I have purchased or leased a fair amount of property for the right and privilege to hunt on. It's called private property and as such, my competition with other hunters is minimal and those that do trespass are prosecuted. I work hard to manage our properties and part of that management is controlling trespassers that take animals and deny me and mine the right of peaceful enjoyment on the properties I have. In the same way that I prosecute people for trespassing and taking deer (or any game) off of the land I own/lease, I will legally take out as many predators as possible for doing the same thing. I am the apex predator.

 

[dobber]

didn't say thriving, but did say there are no red wolves, so there hasn't been an issue with hybrids other than with family pets.
I will use your logic though, you clearly noted you support the decimation of wildlife to support your cause. - You used the word control, i just decided to put a similar "spin" on it.
I dont tend to read papers on a subject from one side, i review who is writing them and what their agenda is, clearly logical to come to the conclusion they will write what they believe and to push their agenda.

 

[stiab]

let's say... perhaps...Let's say...you'd likely...if someone...there seems to be...assume...a strong tendency...perceived... seems...

Wow, that's a lot of suppositions to deal with in one post.

 

[ron.sutherland2]

Another good analogy. I have purchased or leased a fair amount of property for the right and privilege to hunt on. It's called private property and as such, my competition with other hunters is minimal and those that do trespass are prosecuted. I work hard to manage our properties and part of that management is controlling trespassers that take animals and deny me and mine the right of peaceful enjoyment on the properties I have. In the same way that I prosecute people for trespassing and taking deer (or any game) off of the land I own/lease, I will legally take out as many predators as possible for doing the same thing. I am the apex predator.

I respect your right to own and control private property, believe it or not. But in the US, the model we've used for the last 100 years is one of public ownership of wildlife. Makes sense, really, since so few of us are feudal land barons on the scale of Ted Turner, and so wildlife management on one property has strong effects on the neighbors. In your case, as I understand it much of your property is bounded on several sides by Pocosin Lakes NWR. If, as several anti-wolf folks have suggested, the federal government were to put up a fence to keep the wolves in, I suspect that would be extremely deleterious to your business model, even if it did lead to a decline in canid predators on your land (which is debatable given the resourceful coyote). The legality question is another issue - imagine the chaos if every landowner took the liberty of interpreting hunting laws in the same way several of you have approached laws regarding the red wolf? ("that's not a bear, that's some sort of south-american skunk ape that was brought here by the federal government in black helicopters, and therefore I am entitled to shoot all I want") Last I checked, at least till the new regulations from FWS are finalized, it is still illegal to intentionally take a red wolf, even on your own property, unless it is actively threatening you or your livestock (not your deer!).

 

[Mike Noles aka conman]

It's hard to "intentionally take" something that even you experts can't readily identify unless it's dead or wearing one of the zoo collars. Even with a collar, there's no certainty because the USFWS also collars coyotes. A fence would only keep those animals in that are used to captivity (ie; "red wolves"). I've watched both deer and bear maneuver 10 foot fences with ease, so I doubt a fence would have any negative effect on my business model. At no time have I claimed ownership of any wildlife. They're a public trust. I do claim to be able to attract the ones I want to hunt to properties that I own and control how trespassers (human and animal) invade that property.

 

[Buxndiverdux]

let's say I post some pictures of hunters killing, dressing, and eating deer, and then make some wild claims about how the deer are being wiped out by vicious and ruthless hunters, perhaps flying a plane around an environmentalist or animal rights conference or two telling people to "google the great deer killers scandal". Let's say I also point out that the NC Wildlife Resources Commission is perniciously doing what it can to promote hunting and recruit and train even more hunters, using money that could be going instead to buying precious deer habitat. What would you say to counter those claims? You'd point out that there is an obvious difference between eating deer and causing the deer population to collapse. And then, in defense of hunting (which as I've said before I'm not opposed to, this is just a metaphor), you'd likely also make some claims about how hunting is necessary to keep the deer population under control, that without hunting the deer would eat all of their food and starve, etc. etc.

On the other hand, if someone here posts a picture of a coyote or wolf with a fawn in its mouth, there seems to be this general knee jerk reaction to assume that a wildlife disaster is happening right before your eyes. And I've also noticed a strong tendency to sensationalize the way that wild carnivores kill their prey, to make it as unsavory and barbaric-sounding as possible.

My point is that deer hunters and wild carnivores are pretty much in the same boat, you're both helping to control the deer, you both like the way deer taste (as do I, I'll admit) and you both come to grips with killing other animals in order to feed yourselves and your children. Even with coyotes and a handful of wolves, there are still plenty of deer to go around, and the perceived "us or them"/"our way of life is in danger" rhetoric seems way overblown.

If said hunters were a hired group of savage killers slaughtering small game and deer on PRIVATE land that were supported by the Federal Government, then you might have a valid point. But you don’t.

 

[ron.sutherland2]

It's hard to "intentionally take" something that even you experts can't readily identify unless it's dead or wearing one of the zoo collars. Even with a collar, there's no certainty because the USFWS also collars coyotes. A fence would only keep those animals in that are used to captivity (ie; "red wolves"). I've watched both deer and bear maneuver 10 foot fences with ease, so I doubt a fence would have any negative effect on my business model. At no time have I claimed ownership of any wildlife. They're a public trust. I do claim to be able to attract the ones I want to hunt to properties that I own and control how trespassers (human and animal) invade that property.

believe it or not the wolves, coyotes, hawks, eagles, bobcats, owls, alligators, otters and all of the other predators are covered by the public trust as well. Your neighbor, the National Wildlife Refuge, likes them (on behalf of the entire nation), and when you shoot them on your property that affects your neighbor. Its not just the deer and bear.

 

[Mike Noles aka conman]

believe it or not the wolves, coyotes, hawks, eagles, bobcats, owls, alligators, otters and all of the other predators are covered by the public trust as well. Your neighbor, the National Wildlife Refuge, likes them (on behalf of the entire nation), and when you shoot them on your property that affects your neighbor. Its not just the deer and bear.

All wildlife is a public trust. Always has been and I absolutely respect that. Hunters and landowners are the most true form of conservationists. The NPOs and NWR have never been a good neighbor. At best, they are tolerated bullies. And I don't bully well......

 

[odie408]

believe it or not the wolves, coyotes, hawks, eagles, bobcats, owls, alligators, otters and all of the other predators are covered by the public trust as well. Your neighbor, the National Wildlife Refuge, likes them (on behalf of the entire nation), and when you shoot them on your property that affects your neighbor. Its not just the deer and bear.

I think the National Wildlife Refuge likes carbon credits more than the animals, they have flooded out all but the alligator and otter from PLNWR putting the woof in harms way.

 

[Wanchese]

believe it or not the wolves, coyotes, hawks, eagles, bobcats, owls, alligators, otters and all of the other predators are covered by the public trust as well. Your neighbor, the National Wildlife Refuge, likes them (on behalf of the entire nation), and when you shoot them on your property that affects your neighbor. Its not just the deer and bear.

They may like alligators and otters but appears to me, they are trying to remove anything that doesn't live in water.

 

[Wanchese]

I think the National Wildlife Refuge likes carbon credits more than the animals, they have flooded out all but the alligator and otter from PLNWR putting the woof in harms way.

You beat me to it.

 

[odie408]

Maybe they should take the invented woof back to the drawing board and give them webbed feet.

 

[Mike Noles aka conman]

I don't remember this being posted here. If so, my apologies and I'll remove it. This is essentially the USFWS finally agreeing that the program, as is, is not going to be successful.

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/five-year-reviews/red-wolf-2018.pdf

 

[Mike Noles aka conman]

If you think your voice isn't needed, read this stuff. Please repost to as many forums as you are members of and comment!!

https://www.regulations.gov/docketB...mentDueDate&po=0&dct=PS&D=FWS-R4-ES-2018-0035

 

[shaggy]

In all seriousness, would you be ok with that policy if it also applied to national forests, military bases, etc? Looking at the big picture, that might almost work, at least in some parts of the southeast US. Otherwise, the big issue is that Alligator River NWR, while huge by most standards, is too small for a self-sustaining population of red wolves. Since the red wolf needs basically no special habitat management other than protection from being shot, and since it does just fine in agricultural areas, it seems like a cheaper and easier solution would be to pay large blocks of farmers to host the wolves on their land. Anyone open to that?

Why would anyone want that?

 

[ron.sutherland2]

Why would anyone want that?

because the majority (90% by some polls) of people in the US value keeping endangered species from going extinct. If you're in the minority on this, maybe join a victims group or something?

 

[shaggy]

because the majority (90% by some polls) of people in the US value keeping endangered species from going extinct. If you're in the minority on this, maybe join a victims group or something?

Those people aren't the ones directly affected by the program. They don't know what really happens. I bet that 90% drops considerably if they had such a program dropped in their backyard.