• At some point over the next few days NC Hunt and Fish will be migrating to a new server. We are not changing our hosting provider, but we are changing machines within that provider. The reason is that an external vendor, cPanel, has increased the price of their software and we need to migrate to a different control panel. When the migration occurs, the site will be unavailable and it will remain unavailable until the DNS servers are populated with the new IP address. This could take a day, but usually happens overnight. Once the site goes down you should clear your cookies and cache in your browser so you no longer attempt to connect to an old instance. Instructions will be posted on the old server so people who are stuck there will know how to find the new server.

Sticky "Red Wolf" restoration scandal

Sportsman

Old Mossy Horns
Hairy - In this particular case, what is it that the biologists "know they are talking about"? As you haven't disclosed where you are from, but have made it clear that you're not from the east....how is it that you think you know what you are talking about? If you haven't spent significant time in the wilds of ENC, you have no clue of the devastation caused by the deer eating dogs you seem, to be supporting. in my 35 years outdoors here, I've seen the before and after. Again, I ask what is your agenda here?
 

Mike Noles aka conman

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
Then I should fit right in around here. No opposing opinions allowed? Is that the rule? Seems a bit out of balance if all you hear is the opinions of those who share yours. Makes for some real short conversations. By the way I know Mike and I have respect for the fact that he has strong opinions, as I would hope that he has respect for those with strong yet opposing opinions.
I can respect opposing opinions when I know what they are. Seems you oppose free enterprise, maybe? Or just private landowners? What's your stance on the "wolf" program?
 

wanchese

Ten Pointer
I bet this hugger would cry his eyes out if heard a poor little fawn being demolished by one of these multi-million dollar monsters.
 

oldtimehunter

Guest
Hairy - what is your M.O. here? Get to the point. Are you making an attempt to show support for the red wolf (coyote), or simply here to call out landowners who are standing up and speaking out against our government? Drop the 'tude and clarify your point.
I do not mean to present an attitude and I apologize if that is the way I have come across. All I am saying is think for yourself. I personally like to have information from more than one source when making any decision. I have been lead down a bad road too many times over my many years to rely on a sole source. I have no M.O. I suspect there is more to the potential issues of game density. It is easy to point a finger at a scapegoat and ignore a larger issue that might be affecting game populations on the peninsula. I have looked at the harvest numbers and do not see any significant trend implying an inordinate decline in deer numbers. Rack size seems to be the main complaint I can discern from most complaints. Rack size is not related to the presence of predator but is rather a function of nutritional availability/buck to doe ratio. Wolves or coyotes have been here for 25+ years why and how are they affecting the perceived game populations now? I guess if I do have a M.O. it would be to find out what factors are affecting game populations.
 

Sportsman

Old Mossy Horns
Wanchese - I spoke w/ a good friend from one of the "5 counties" today who, just yesterday, found 3 carcasses of yearling deer in his field. These deer killing mongrels are alsolutely worthless. Same property, 15-20 years ago was an absolute Mecca for cottontails. Today, you can't find one.
 

oldtimehunter

Guest
I can respect opposing opinions when I know what they are. Seems you oppose free enterprise, maybe? Or just private landowners? What's your stance on the "wolf" program?
Don't really have a stance. I tend to think the issue of the origin of the species gets oversimplified by individuals that are of the old school management(kill all predators). I tend to believe everything has a purpose and that it should not be discarded without due consideration. No I support free enterprise that is why I suggested that we turn the refuge back over to public ownership. Do you have a differing opinion? Do you have a better management strategy for the refuge lands.
 

Sportsman

Old Mossy Horns
As I figured. Hairy, you have no idea what you're talking about. No firsthand experience whatsoever, and therefore a fool in my eyes. Taking the side of the gub'mt vs. an individual speaking the truth proves to me that you are merely a sheep. Beware of the "red white & blue wolf". He'll bite ya.
 

oldtimehunter

Guest
Wanchese - I spoke w/ a good friend from one of the "5 counties" today who, just yesterday, found 3 carcasses of yearling deer in his field. These deer killing mongrels are alsolutely worthless. Same property, 15-20 years ago was an absolute Mecca for cottontails. Today, you can't find one.
What are all the factors that have changed on this land? Farming practices, pesticide use, habitat change, age of the forested part of the property. I agree that predators have and impact but game species need forage and cover. Lots of farms have gone to clean farming doing away with habitat/cover that really made them good for game. It is not always one cause but a cummulative impact of many.
 

Mike Noles aka conman

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
Yes, there are several available plans that would benefit the game and hunters better. I had no problems when the land was privately held before becoming fed land, I'd have none if returned.

And you're very wrong as to old school thinking about predator control.

><>
 

oldtimehunter

Guest
I bet this hugger would cry his eyes out if heard a poor little fawn being demolished by one of these multi-million dollar monsters.
Had deer tonight. Neck roast in the crock pot. Slow cooked for two days.
 

oldtimehunter

Guest
Yes, there are several available plans that would benefit the game and hunters better. I had no problems when the land was privately held before becoming fed land, I'd have none if returned.

And you're very wrong as to old school thinking about predator control.

><>
Enlighten me. Please.
 

oldtimehunter

Guest
Pssst. This is a privately owned forum. When it comes to posting here, you have whatever rights we decide you have. If you don't like that then you really need to move on.
Remove me at your will.
 

Sportsman

Old Mossy Horns
What are all the factors that have changed on this land? Farming practices, pesticide use, habitat change, age of the forested part of the property. I agree that predators have and impact but game species need forage and cover. Lots of farms have gone to clean farming doing away with habitat/cover that really made them good for game. It is not always one cause but a cummulative impact of many.
100% one cause....the red yote. Period.

I've known this property for over twenty years....before the first mangy k9 was spotted and since.
 

oldtimehunter

Guest
100% one cause....the red yote. Period.

I've known this property for over twenty years....before the first mangy k9 was spotted and since.
Nothing has changed? Except the addition of ~75 wolves over 1.7million acres? No increase in bear population. No habitat change. No removal of wind rows. No new pesticides? No clean farming? No Change in crops? Nothing? I guess it is hopeless unless your get rid of the wolves.
 

Sportsman

Old Mossy Horns
You got it. Again, you prove that you are clueless in this matter.

Bear population - virtually unchanged.

Timber has matured.

Wind rows have been there for longer than I have known the property.

No pesticides used in the timber.

Clean farming has been the practice for 30+ years.

Crops, same old soybeans and corn.

The animal you call a red wolf is a coyote. I can only wish there were 75 over 1.7m acres.
 
Nothing has changed? Except the addition of ~75 wolves over 1.7million acres? No increase in bear population. No habitat change. No removal of wind rows. No new pesticides? No clean farming? No Change in crops? Nothing? I guess it is hopeless unless your get rid of the wolves.
As someone who is intimately familiar with pesticides, it always amuses me how people such as yourself who are so ignorant of the subject are so quick to blame pesticides for all kinds of problems. Do you realize that pesticide manufacturers spend millions of dollars just to satisfy the EPA before they can be labeled for use? Effects on non-target animals, soil half-life, potential groundwater contamination, all of these are evaluated by your precious gov't before these "evil" pesticidescan be brought to market. Talk about a "scapegoat"…….
 

oldtimehunter

Guest
You got it. Again, you prove that you are clueless in this matter.

Bear population - virtually unchanged.

Timber has matured.

Wind rows have been there for longer than I have known the property.

No pesticides used in the timber.

Clean farming has been the practice for 30+ years.

Crops, same old soybeans and corn.

The animal you call a red wolf is a coyote. I can only wish there were 75 over 1.7m acres.
Regardless of the status of the genetics analysis related to the "Red yote". What are your coyote population estimates for the peninsula? What factors do you think contributed to the increase of coyotes on the peninsula? What do you think of NCWRC allowing live sale of coyotes to ~150 fox pens within the state? Where is this property? How many acres? What is the ratio of farm land to cover/timber?
 

Sportsman

Old Mossy Horns
I don't mind answering your questions. Already have. You answer ours.

What is your motivation/agenda here?
Do you support the red wolf program?
Do you believe coyotes/wolves should be protected?
 

oldtimehunter

Guest
As someone who is intimately familiar with pesticides, it always amuses me how people such as yourself who are so ignorant of the subject are so quick to blame pesticides for all kinds of problems. Do you realize that pesticide manufacturers spend millions of dollars just to satisfy the EPA before they can be labeled for use? Effects on non-target animals, soil half-life, potential groundwater contamination, all of these are evaluated by your precious gov't before these "evil" pesticides can be brought to market. Talk about a "scapegoat"&#8230;&#8230;.
You are mistaken I was not "blaming" pesticides only looking for things that have changed. Pesticides may not directly effect the game species via poisoning but they can eliminate food sources by eliminating the the "weeds" and the seeds that are a vital part of the diet of many game species. For example Quail don't eat soybeans and corn. If they did many farmers would be asking for permits to shoot them as they do with the deer during the planting/growing season. I am not looking to blame I am looking for answers to issues. Sorry for not clarifying the reason for my questions. Which unfortunately were not directly answered.
The USDA certification process is greatly influenced by corporate resources via lobbyist or as most USDA employees are former employees of DOW and MONSANTO. The trials are not foolproof as have been exhibited by numerous lawsuits and removal of certain products from the market (DDT, 4-4D, etc..). Most trails are rather minimal and if the application guidelines are not followed they are non applicable. I know farmer would not intentionally misuse these chemicals rather I again refer to the unintended consequences I mentioned before. USDA does not look at the elimination of weed species and the effect it has on game populations by eliminating food or cover essential to their survival.
 
Last edited:

oldtimehunter

Guest
I don't mind answering your questions. Already have. You answer ours.

What is your motivation/agenda here?
Do you support the red wolf program?
Do you believe coyotes/wolves should be protected?
Like I said before, my only agenda is to contribute to a forum and hopefully find solutions to issues facing game populations. I hope that by combining all available knowledge the hunting community can find answers to issues. Is that not the purpose of a forum? Not everything is a conspiracy and not everyone with differing opinions is an enemy. I only wish to exclude only that can be positively identified as a non factor when it come to the wildlife resource that we all wish to protect and preserve.
As for the support of the Red Wolf program I am neutral. As for protection of coyotes I have to reply the same. I don't think we can say what their ultimate role will be in our area. I do know they are here to stay. USDA spend 125-150 million a year to eliminate them and has done so for the past 50 years or better, only to see them spread across the US. They are not going away. Pery species will adapt. We need to help them by providing as much good quality habitat as possible.
 
Last edited:

oldtimehunter

Guest
To all,
I apologise for not answering as quickly as possible. It seems that most responses are directed at me and therefor it takes a few minutes with my hunting and pecking typing style to get to all the replies. I often find that I have overlooked a part of the multiple part questions and have to go back and edit my rplies as i did with this one.
 
Last edited:

Jett

Eight Pointer
Mike and the others who have come to my defense from "oldimehunter", I sincerely appreciate your support.

I guess it never occurred to me that my love of bird dogs, horses and the land of eastern NC was a bad and suspicious thing. Much more disturbing is to now find out that "Quail don't eat soybeans and corn"!!! ;)

As this important untold story is now being revealed throughout our state with your help, I expect more personal attacks. No problem. This is a critical issue that needs to be addressed before the damage becomes irreparable. One of our Wildlife Commissioners told me last week that the red wolf/coyote issue would likely be the biggest factor to affect our wildlife in NC in the his lifetime.

I thank you for your support.

I hope we can get this thread back on track.

Jett Ferebee
 
Last edited:

Jett

Eight Pointer
RED WOLF IS 76% COYOTE!!!!!!!

"The red wolf in North Carolina, which has been the subject of extensive preservation and restoration efforts, was found to be 24 percent wolf and 76 percent coyote."

See article below:


Study: Eastern wolves are hybrids with coyotes
By Mary Esch Associated Press / May 31, 2011
&#8226; E-mail|
&#8226; Print|
Text size &#8211; +
ALBANY, N.Y.&#8212;Wolves in the eastern United States are hybrids of gray wolves and coyotes, while the region's coyotes actually are wolf-coyote-dog hybrids, according to a new genetic study that is adding fuel to a longstanding debate over the origins of two endangered species.
&#8226; Tweet Be the first to Tweet this!
&#8226; ShareThis
The study is unlikely to impact the management of the endangered red wolf in North Carolina and the eastern Canadian wolf in Ontario, but it offers fresh insight into their genetic makeup and concludes that those wolves are hybrids that developed over the last few hundred years.
Some scientists have argued that the red wolf, Canis rufus, and the eastern Canadian wolf, Canis lycaon, evolved from an ancient eastern wolf species distinct from the larger gray wolf, Canis lupus, that is found in western North America.
Wolf experts who adhere to that theory say the new study is interesting but falls short of proving anything. They say it doesn't explain why hybrids appear only in some places and note that western wolves don't hybridize with coyotes but often kill them.
In the study, published online earlier this month in the peer-reviewed journal Genome Research, 16 researchers from around the globe led by Robert Wayne of the University of California-Los Angeles, used information from the dog genome -- the animal's entire genetic code -- to survey the genetic diversity in dogs, wolves and coyotes.
It was the most detailed genetic study of any wild vertebrate species to date, using molecular genetic techniques to look at over 48,000 markers throughout the full genome, said Roland Kays, curator of mammals at the New York State Museum and a co-author.
In a previous study of the dog genome published last year in the journal Nature, a Wayne-led international team of scientists reported that domestic dogs likely originated in the Middle East and shared more genetic similarity with Middle Eastern gray wolves than any other wolf population.
The recent study showed a gradient of hybridization in wolves.
In the West, wolves were pure wolf, while in the western Great Lakes, they averaged 85 percent wolf and 15 percent coyote. Wolves in Algonquin Park in eastern Ontario averaged 58 percent wolf.
The red wolf in North Carolina, which has been the subject of extensive preservation and restoration efforts, was found to be 24 percent wolf and 76 percent coyote.
Northeastern coyotes, which only colonized the region in the past 60 years, were found to be 82 percent coyote, 9 percent dog and 9 percent wolf.
In a study co-authored by Kays last year in the journal Biology Letters, museum specimens and genetic samples were used to show that coyotes migrating eastward bred with wolves to evolve into a larger form that has become the top predator in the Northeast, filling a niche left when native eastern wolves were hunted out of existence. The hybridization allowed coyotes to evolve from the scrawny mouse-eaters of western grasslands to robust deer-hunters in eastern forests.
The genetic techniques used in the recent study allowed researchers to estimate that hybridization, in most cases, happened when humans were hunting eastern wolves to extinction, Kays said.
"The few remaining animals could find no proper mates so took the best option they could get," Kays said.
L. David Mech, senior research scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey's Northern Prairie Research Center in St. Paul, Minn., and founder of the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minn., is skeptical of the theory that eastern wolves are hybrids.
"How do you reconcile this with the fact that gray wolves typically don't breed with coyotes, but kill them?" Mech said. "We have no records in the West of wolves hybridizing with coyotes, even in areas where single wolves looking for mates have dispersed into the middle of coyote country."
Mech also questioned whether the study tested enough Canadian and North Carolina wolves and whether those specimens were true representatives of those populations.
Although 48,000 genetic markers sounds like a lot, it's actually a relatively small part of the entire genetic code, Mech said. So the evidence of a unique eastern wolf ancestor could simply be in another part of the code that wasn't analyzed, he said.
Several researchers who consider the eastern wolf species separate from the gray wolf weighed in recently in an online discussion of the new study.
Brent Patterson, a genetics researcher at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, called the study "an important step forward." But until more samples are analyzed, the hypothesis that a North American wolf evolved independently from the gray wolf was still viable, he said.
"It's an academic issue," Mech said. "It's nice to know what the origins are from the standpoint of curiosity, but from a conservation standpoint, it shouldn't make any difference."
David Rabon, coordinator of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Red Wolf Recovery Program in North Carolina, said the federal agency has taken the position that the red wolf is a unique species that warrants protection. The new study, while interesting, won't likely change management decisions, he said.
 

Jett

Eight Pointer
"Major Threat(s): Hybridization with Coyotes or Red Wolf x Coyote hybrids is the primary threat to the species' persistence in the wild (Kelly et al. 1999). While hybridization with Coyotes was a factor in the Red Wolf's initial demise in the wild, it was not detected as a problem in north-eastern North Carolina until approximately 1992 (Phillips et al. 1995). Indeed, northeastern North Carolina was determined to be ideal for Red Wolf reintroductions because of a purported absence of coyotes (Parker 1986). However, during the 1990s, the Coyote population apparently became well established in the area (P. Sumner pers. comm.; USFWS, unpubl.).

It has been estimated that the Red Wolf population in North Carolina can sustain only one hybrid litter out of every 59 litters (1.7%) to maintain 90% of its genetic diversity for the next 100 years (Kelly et al. 1999). However, prior to learning of this acceptable introgression rate, the introgression rate noted in the reintroduced population was minimally 15% (Kelly et al. 1999) or approximately 900% more than the population can sustain to maintain 90% of its genetic diversity for 100 years. If such levels of hybridization continued beyond 1999, non-hybridized Red Wolves could disappear within 12?24 years (3?6 generations)."

NOTE: THE MAJOR INFLUX OF COYOTES INTO THE RECOVERY AREA OCCURRED AFTER 1999!!!!
 
Last edited:

Jett

Eight Pointer
The current recovery plan (USFWS 1990) specifies the following objectives listed
below.

1) Objective: Establish and maintain at least three red wolf populations via
restoration projects within the historic range of the red wolf. Each population
should be numerically large enough to have the potential for allowing natural
evolutionary processes to work within the species. This must be paralleled by the
cooperation and assistance of at least 30 captive breeding facilities in the U.S.

Progress: The Service has established and maintained one wild red wolf
population via collaboration with partners and local communities on the
Albemarle Peninsula in North Carolina. We currently have red wolves at 40
captive breeding facilities across the United States, but additional facili
ties areneeded to expand the captive population as defined under objective 3 below.

2) Objective: Preserve 80% to 90% of red wolf genetic diversity for 150 years.

Progress: Via species survival plan coordination through the Association of Zoos
and Aquariums (AZA), captive breeding program cooperators currently mainta
in 89.65 percent of red wolf genetic diversity expressed in the original founder
population (Long and Waddell 2006).

3) Objective: Remove threats of extinction by achieving a wild population of
approximately 220 wolves and a captive population of approximately 330 wolves.
Progress: The wild red wolf population in North Carolina fluctuates between 100
and 130 wolves in annual calendar year counts that are not necessarily population
estimates. Field data from known wild red wolves since 1999 suggest a minimum
wild red wolf population size which fluctuates between 80 and 100 wolves. We
currently have 208 red wolves (90 males, 113 females, 5 unknown pups) at 40
captive breeding facilities across the United States, but additional facili
ties are needed to reach the objective of 330 red wolves in captivity. (See section 4,
Recommendations for Future Actions).

4) Objective: Maintain the red wolf into perpetuity through embryo banking and
cryogenic preservation of sperm.
Progress: Via species survival plan coordination through the Association of Zoos
and Aquariums (AZA), reproductive studies focusing on semen collection and
processing, cryopreservation, non-invasive evaluation of female reproductive
cycles, and artificial insemination have resulted in steady progress
(Goodrowe et
al. 1998, 2000a, 2000b, 2001; Koehler et al. 1994, 1998; Lockyear 2006; Walker
et al. 2002), but additional work to improve and refine techniques is ongoing.
 

Jett

Eight Pointer
Using their own words to summarize posts 87 - 89 and document a failed program:

"However, prior to learning of this acceptable introgression rate, the introgression rate noted in the reintroduced population was minimally 15% (Kelly et al. 1999) or approximately 900% more than the population can sustain to maintain 90% of its genetic diversity for 100 years."

"The population includes 14 wolf packs (comprised of 45 wolves and 11 breeding pairs), and nine mixed packs (comprised of nine wolves and nine coyotes)."

That is 9 out of 23 packs have coyotes = 40% and this is only from their monitored packs!!!!

"2) Objective: Preserve 80% to 90% of red wolf genetic diversity for 150 years."

Ah gee. Hmmmm. What kind of conclusion can one draw????
 
Top