Sticky "Red Wolf" restoration scandal

woodmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
So my retrospective prediction would be that if several hundred thousand acres of land could have been protected from development, and had an extra layer of all-canid protection thrown in (as would be fitting for a last ditch effort to save one of the world's most endangered animals), and if efforts were made to restore white-tailed deer populations (which were still depressed across the southeast in the 70's due to overharvest by people), then the wolves could have rebounded on their own to a respectable population.

so lets see,,,,this is your desire?

  • set aside "several hundred thousand acres"
  • no take of any canid
  • protection of deer to feed canids
explains everything
 

ellwoodjake

Six Pointer
As you imply Ron, USFWS knew less than nothing about red wolves 50 years ago, and apparently had not increased the knowledge much by the time they were introduced here in 1987. Claiming the Albemarle Peninsula to be ideal habitat for introduction and believing they would stay where there wasn't an adequate prey base seems absurd at best. Selling the introduction to land owners based on the fact that these animals could be removed from private property "if they strayed" with a darting collar that did not work was not a viable solution.

Now, we are 50 years later and find the animals would have been better left alone in the one place where they were surviving and apparently still are with whatever prey base they have found.

Reminds me of the adage, "We're from the government and we're here to help."

How much faith does anyone have in a government that can f^&* up a GAS CAN?
 

Eric Revo

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
I wonder if those government employees who are in charge of the fake woof program are considered to be "essential employees" ? I know the animal that they created sure isn't essential, the places that they force it on would agree that absolutely no good has come from this program.
 

Take 'em

Six Pointer
Ron, you say 150 were doing well in the wild in 2006. You know that is deliberately misleading, and as Odie points out 132 were released and 120 of those illegally. In addition, not only were they illegal, but since a good portion were released on private property, they were doubly illegal. How can you possibly expect the people who live in these 5 counties to support a program in which they have been lied to by USFWS repeatedly. Please don't continue to be like the little boy who cried "wolf".

It is past time for this program to end in the Albemarle. Should Texans decide to host them, I'm sure you can find a job at Texas A&M or some other fine university there. Perhaps Kim Wheeler could move as well, but wanting to do away with all hunting in Texas might not play well there any better than it did here.
 

GSOHunter

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
I understand genetic diversity and hybridization, Ron, as well as the terminology that's often confusing. My question, and just so I'm clear, is this; In order to be declared a distinct species, the DNA of that "species" has to be the repeatable at each mating, right? If so, why are there so many litters and individual pups killed in the captive breeding programs and in the wild and why do the progeny of the "founders" continue to show so little red wolf DNA and such a high incidence of coyote?

I could give a tinkers dink as to whether the program survives or not and it has nothing to do with the animal. My aversion has been and will always be how the federal government and NPOs have used this animal as a cash cow and how each have tried to trample landowner/property rights of those of us that actually worked and earned our properties.
They prefer the term culled. Killed makes it sounds like they gassed, clubbed and drowned the little pups.


Disclaimer: Sarcasm may be involved...
 

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
so lets see,,,,this is your desire?

  • set aside "several hundred thousand acres"
  • no take of any canid
  • protection of deer to feed canids
explains everything
No, actually, what I said was that, looking retrospectively, the way to recover wolves along the Gulf Coast would be to have (past tense) protected the land from urban development, protected the canids, and recovered the deer population, which at that point was still slowly recovering from the big crash caused by human hunters. A recovered deer population could support wild predators and humans, as long as the harvest by people is kept within sustainable limits. I would have no problem with protecting a bunch of private land with easements purchased from willing sellers, protecting the wolves because they're endangered, and letting people hunt deer, turkey, etc.
 

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
Ron, you say 150 were doing well in the wild in 2006. You know that is deliberately misleading, and as Odie points out 132 were released and 120 of those illegally. In addition, not only were they illegal, but since a good portion were released on private property, they were doubly illegal. How can you possibly expect the people who live in these 5 counties to support a program in which they have been lied to by USFWS repeatedly. Please don't continue to be like the little boy who cried "wolf".

It is past time for this program to end in the Albemarle. Should Texans decide to host them, I'm sure you can find a job at Texas A&M or some other fine university there. Perhaps Kim Wheeler could move as well, but wanting to do away with all hunting in Texas might not play well there any better than it did here.
Take 'em, as you hopefully are aware, though I could see some people could be confused by the rhetoric on this forum, the wolves that were released onto private land were released there with the landowners' permission. That permission may have been poorly documented in some cases (ie verbal instead of written contracts) but the fact remains that the landowners knew what was going on, and were either supportive or at least didn't mind. The issue of whether the agency had authority to allow such releases is one that didn't really come up until FWS leaders decided to undermine their own program from within.

If Jett is so sure those wolves were released illegally, why hasn't he spent some of his money filing a lawsuit? Maybe it is because some lawyer friend of his advised him he would lose, and lose big? Similar lawsuits were filed in the 90's, and they lost, though they didn't even bother raising the issue of the legality of expanding the recovery effort to private lands. Wonder why?

As to Odie's point, I readily agree that it is sad that the red wolves haven't taken off like the gray wolves did in the Northern Rockies. If they had, we'd have thousands of red wolves across several states by now, and I could happily work on other priorities. But red wolves are A. less able to quickly displace coyotes (though they get the job done slowly), B. hemmed in by a restrictive recovery area and a USFWS that tended to fetch them when they strayed too far, and C. starting from a severe bottleneck and insufficient genetic diversity, thanks to the way we let the red wolf population nearly disappear before lifting a finger to try to save them. Gray wolves, on the other hand, had the luxury of being imported from a large, healthy, genetically-diverse population in Canada. There may be other reasons too, like the fact that the red wolves were raised in captivity for a few generations, who knows what sort of impacts that had.

The other thing to keep in mind is that yes, they released a number of wolves, but that was over a 30-year period. The last estimate I saw for the average lifespan of wild red wolves was only 3 years, with breeding pairs only lasting a single season before being broken up by mortality events. With parameters like that, it isn't easy to grow the population unless you reduce mortality rates, which is what USFWS should be trying to do.
 

woodmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
No, actually, what I said was that, looking retrospectively, the way to recover wolves along the Gulf Coast would be to have (past tense) protected the land from urban development, protected the canids, and recovered the deer population, which at that point was still slowly recovering from the big crash caused by human hunters. A recovered deer population could support wild predators and humans, as long as the harvest by people is kept within sustainable limits. I would have no problem with protecting a bunch of private land with easements purchased from willing sellers, protecting the wolves because they're endangered, and letting people hunt deer, turkey, etc.

ok - I misread your original on that subject then,,,there is normally only room for one type/species of apex predator in any one area though

however, the issue is the fakeness of these canids,,,,and the backpedaling of agreements on the rules/facts in the Alblemarle Peninsula,,,,
 

Take 'em

Six Pointer
I don't believe that USFWS had to close coyote hunting in the Rockies to recover the gray wolf. That is something your post seems to advocate here in NC and surrounding states with the red wolf. We see what happened in the 5 county recovery area, and you say this, " As to Odie's point, I readily agree that it is sad that the red wolves haven't taken off like the gray wolves did in the Northern Rockies. If they had, we'd have thousands of red wolves across several states by now, and I could happily work on other priorities."

Thousands of red wolves across several states by your admission would result in the same onerous restrictions now imposed on the residents of those 5 recovery counties. Thanks, but no thanks!
 

Mike Noles aka conman

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
Take 'em, as you hopefully are aware, though I could see some people could be confused by the rhetoric on this forum, the wolves that were released onto private land were released there with the landowners' permission. That permission may have been poorly documented in some cases (ie verbal instead of written contracts) but the fact remains that the landowners knew what was going on, and were either supportive or at least didn't mind. The issue of whether the agency had authority to allow such releases is one that didn't really come up until FWS leaders decided to undermine their own program from within.

If Jett is so sure those wolves were released illegally, why hasn't he spent some of his money filing a lawsuit? Maybe it is because some lawyer friend of his advised him he would lose, and lose big? Similar lawsuits were filed in the 90's, and they lost, though they didn't even bother raising the issue of the legality of expanding the recovery effort to private lands. Wonder why?

As to Odie's point, I readily agree that it is sad that the red wolves haven't taken off like the gray wolves did in the Northern Rockies. If they had, we'd have thousands of red wolves across several states by now, and I could happily work on other priorities. But red wolves are A. less able to quickly displace coyotes (though they get the job done slowly), B. hemmed in by a restrictive recovery area and a USFWS that tended to fetch them when they strayed too far, and C. starting from a severe bottleneck and insufficient genetic diversity, thanks to the way we let the red wolf population nearly disappear before lifting a finger to try to save them. Gray wolves, on the other hand, had the luxury of being imported from a large, healthy, genetically-diverse population in Canada. There may be other reasons too, like the fact that the red wolves were raised in captivity for a few generations, who knows what sort of impacts that had.
I don't know about Jett or other landowners, but the red wolves were released on one of my properties two times without my permission and I minded. The first two were caught in traps and returned to USFWS. Within 48 hours, they were back on our farm. One, the male, was hit by a car, the female moved over to a neighbor and was killed by a pack of deer dogs. The second time they were illegally released, we trapped both and they were removed by the USFWS. Those were never seen on our properties, again, but by then the coyotes were getting pretty thick, so that may be why there was no return.

As to the "impacts" of the breeding programs of those in captivity, I hunt and work with some folks that treat these animals for all of their maladies and to the person, they tell about the how poor the eyes, teeth and overall digestive tracts are of every animal they have their hands on. According to the people treating them, those maladies plus the poor health due to heart worms is all related to captive breeding.
 

Aythya

Eight Pointer
I believe if you check, in the internal review of the program, the Inspector, or whatever the overseer of said reviews title was, determined was that no releases on private property were authorized in the original plan of the program with or without the consent of the land owner, so anything released on private land was illegal.

As a member of one of the states largest sportsman and conservation clubs I have heard of the shortcomings of the reintroduction program since it's inception in NC. We were one of the first private clubs to give a donation or grant to the program. As with any funds that we give out , our only request is a report back in 3-5 years as to how the program is working and how the funds we donated are being spent. We had several members and guests from NCSU's agriculture, and fisheries and wildlife departments at that presentation. Their skepticism of the recapture for annual heart worm treatments and other aspects of the program lent doubt to the credibility and viability of the red coyotes. Our participation in funding was halted.

On a better note our several $K grant to now Dr. Tim Langer and his bear genetics, and satellite collar program in eastern NC was money well spent and a great success.
 

Take 'em

Six Pointer
"So my retrospective prediction would be that if several hundred thousand acres of land could have been protected from development, and had an extra layer of all-canid protection thrown in (as would be fitting for a last ditch effort to save one of the world's most endangered animals), and if efforts were made to restore white-tailed deer populations (which were still depressed across the southeast in the 70's due to overharvest by people), then the wolves could have rebounded on their own to a respectable population."

Ah, Ron I think that has been tried already. ARNWR and Dare County Bombing Range comprise right at 200,000 acres and were able to support one pair of wolves.
 

Buxndiverdux

Old Mossy Horns
Funny how the red “wolves” in Texas survived without protection in less than what was considered “ideal habitat” by the supposed woof knowitalls.

Yet your average Joe could cipher that the last known place of a certain species whereabouts was probably one of the best places they could survive and get by on even the toughest times. It’s just plain old common sense...

You woof quacks are a clown show.
 

stiab

Ten Pointer
Contributor
...Yet your average Joe could cipher that the last known place of a certain species whereabouts was probably one of the best places they could survive...
Too obvious for the 'scientists' I suppose. And they still want to force these animals on eastern NC even after the government has declared the habitat is "marginal" for them.
 

Aythya

Eight Pointer
So now the NGO and USFWS biologists tell us that genetic purity is not that big a deal with the red woofs and we should embrace hybrids for whatever characteristics of the endangered animal they carry. Hybrid good !

But if this same discussion is about waterfowl, black ducks in particular, hybridization is bad because hybridization with mallards threatens pure black duck populations. Hybrid bad!

While crossbreeding between whitetails and mule deer doesn't threaten the existence of either species studies have shown that the characteristic "stotting" or four legged pogo stick gait of the mule deer disappears in crosses, even in those individuals with as little as 1/8th whitetail lineage.
Is this good or does this loss of a trait that is defining of the mule deer make this hybridization bad ?

Of course if your whole program has been based on a hybrid rather than a specific species from day one I guess you embrace whatever keeps the $$$$ rolling.
 

Jett

Eight Pointer
Modern DNA evidence reveals Red Wolf is a 75/25 coyote/gray wolf hybrid and is NOT protected by the ESA.
But "conservationists" want to protect it anyway...... Great video here:

 

stiab

Ten Pointer
Contributor
...On the related subject of trying to establish whether the red wolf of today (in NC and the zoos) is the exact same as the wolf that was in eastern NC in 1492...
The link below says they are much more recent than that, and that there is nothing special about their DNA...

"The data suggests that red wolves emerged in the 1800s or somewhat earlier..."

"The new study released today is the first to examine the complete genomes of red and eastern wolves, and it suggests that both are actually recent hybrids of gray wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (Canis latrans)."

“The genomic composition of eastern wolves and red wolves could be explained simply by hybridization between gray wolves and coyotes.”

http://wildlife.org/supposed-wolf-species-may-actually-be-hybrids/
 
Last edited:

Mike Noles aka conman

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
The link below says they are much more recent than that, and that their is nothing special about their DNA...

"The data suggests that red wolves emerged in the 1800s or somewhat earlier..."

"The new study released today is the first to examine the complete genomes of red and eastern wolves, and it suggests that both are actually recent hybrids of gray wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes (Canis latrans)."

“The genomic composition of eastern wolves and red wolves could be explained simply by hybridization between gray wolves and coyotes.”

http://wildlife.org/supposed-wolf-species-may-actually-be-hybrids/
The really interesting thing about articles like this is that most could readily accept the hybrid theory. Left to it's own, the "red wolf" and eastern wolf would eventually be declared extinct (again) and renamed as a species that is already being being proposed. The coywolf exhibits DNA of most wild canid species plus the domestic dog and the "new" species name being proposed is Canis Oriens. With that designation and the tremendous proliferation of that animal along the east coast, no ESA would need to be issued. Problem solved, landowners safe from being inhibited by feds and NPOs for safe harbor of an endangered species.
 

odie408

Ten Pointer
A sweet 81 year old lady was attacked by what may have been a rabid red woof that was reported to be in the area by a woof biologist to a nearby community. Biologist told them to keep children and pets inside and told landowners to shoot on site. This should have never happened.
 

Take 'em

Six Pointer
Odie, I understand the lady Mrs. Hamilton died today, and seems the original testing by NC Wildlife was incorrectly stated that the DNA evidence pointed to a domestic dog attack. The article now says the DNA evidence that had doesn't differentiate between dogs, coyotes, and wolves. Just wondering if you have more info on where the rabid red wolf was supposed to be located?
 

odie408

Ten Pointer
Odie, I understand the lady Mrs. Hamilton died today, and seems the original testing by NC Wildlife was incorrectly stated that the DNA evidence pointed to a domestic dog attack. The article now says the DNA evidence that had doesn't differentiate between dogs, coyotes, and wolves. Just wondering if you have more info on where the rabid red wolf was supposed to be located?
Between Pantego, swindell rd, swamp rd. I talked to a man that said it was animal control that had told him about a rabid woof. If that is so there should have been a public notice.
 

bigten

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
Odie, I understand the lady Mrs. Hamilton died today, and seems the original testing by NC Wildlife was incorrectly stated that the DNA evidence pointed to a domestic dog attack. The article now says the DNA evidence that had doesn't differentiate between dogs, coyotes, and wolves. Just wondering if you have more info on where the rabid red wolf was supposed to be located?
Just FYI, in most rational peoples knowledge and opinion, there is actually no such thing as a "red wolf" That is a manufactured, invented, non existant, money making animal. Referring to them as such just validates the existence of something that has never been....
 

odie408

Ten Pointer
Just FYI, in most rational peoples knowledge and opinion, there is actually no such thing as a "red wolf" That is a manufactured, invented, non existant, money making animal. Referring to them as such just validates the existence of something that has never been....
That is why I call them red woofs.
 

Take 'em

Six Pointer
Thanks Big Ten, but I think my views on the hybrid fake wolf have been well documented in this thread. Not too worried that any of the NGO's will want to credit this one to the red wolf fake or otherwise. I have some folks whose children attend the school where she taught and from what they have related to me, she was dragged about 30 feet. I sort of doubt a coyote could do that, but we shall see where this goes.
 
Top