nchunt101
Ten Pointer
It would still be my dime and I would rather not piss it away on a boondoggle.
"Red Wolf" restoration scandal
- Thread starter Jett
- Start date
- Status
It would still be my dime and I would rather not piss it away on a boondoggle.
nchunt101
Ten Pointer
Damn if I would use good ammo on the mutts. 55 gr ball can be had much cheaper.
http://urbancoyoteinitiative.com/what-to-do-if-you-encounter-a-coyote-while-walking-your-dog/
Pull out your sidearm and shoot it was not a suggestion.
Pull out your sidearm and shoot it was not a suggestion.
Yeah, but sometimes you need a little more reach out and touch that a .22 doesn't provide.
Wanchese
Twelve Pointer
Hey Ron, might want to put one of your trail cams at the Dare County dump. One of your collared critters was headed in the building to dig through the trash a couple hours ago. It definitely had a collar and definitely went in the building.
Sounds like something an ordinary coyote would do.
nchunt101
Ten Pointer
Yeah, but sometimes you need a little more reach out and touch that a .22 doesn't provide.
True. I have been very impressed with the 6.8 SPCII.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/05/23/2017-10551/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-nonessential-experimental-population-of-red-wolves#open-comment
For those that may be interested. Comment time runs out 7/24. There's almost 12,000 comments on there by people that don't have a frigging clue except to hug a bunny or kiss a tree.
For those that may be interested. Comment time runs out 7/24. There's almost 12,000 comments on there by people that don't have a frigging clue except to hug a bunny or kiss a tree.
Last edited:
My head hurts after reading some of those comments. Many references to the Yellowstone wolves video that has been floating around facebook for months. If the wolves actually kept coyotes around they wouldn't be half bad. Too bad they seem to mate with any canine that comes their way.https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/05/23/2017-10551/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-nonessential-experimental-population-of-red-wolves#open-comment
For those that may be interested. Comment time runs out 7/24. There's almost 12,000 comments on there by people that don't have a frigging clue except to hug a bunny or kiss a tree.
The form letters created by the NPOs should be illegal. A friend that I have at the Interior told me that after the first, the rest are "packaged" in to a single category. It's pitiful that these people aren't capable of even having a thought process of their own to put in to writing.
Had a friend argue with me about that. I told them if they wanted their congressman to read something they needed to not copy and paste. I told them they create a rule if they see the same thing multiple times and they just filter the rest of them out of the inbox.
Jett
Ten Pointer
Federal Spending Proposal Calls for Review of Wolf Genetics
"Environmentalists are concerned that a proposed spending plan for the U.S. Interior Department calls for a study to determine whether Mexican gray wolves are a genetically distinct subspecies.
A report accompanying the legislation suggests federal wildlife officials would be required to determine the validity of the Mexican wolves' designation as a subspecies of the gray wolf. Red wolves also would be reviewed.
The federal agency would have a year to conduct its work and submit a report to Congress."
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...ng-proposal-calls-for-review-of-wolf-genetics
"Environmentalists are concerned that a proposed spending plan for the U.S. Interior Department calls for a study to determine whether Mexican gray wolves are a genetically distinct subspecies.
A report accompanying the legislation suggests federal wildlife officials would be required to determine the validity of the Mexican wolves' designation as a subspecies of the gray wolf. Red wolves also would be reviewed.
The federal agency would have a year to conduct its work and submit a report to Congress."
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...ng-proposal-calls-for-review-of-wolf-genetics
Did any of y'all see the pup reporter on WNCT-TV news do his piece on the "poor endangered red wolf"? Another big propaganda piece by the Defenders of Wildlife. It's on their Facebook page if you're interested.
Jett
Ten Pointer
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/05/23/2017-10551/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-nonessential-experimental-population-of-red-wolves#open-comment
For those that may be interested. Comment time runs out 7/24. There's almost 12,000 comments on there by people that don't have a frigging clue except to hug a bunny or kiss a tree.
Friends,
Please take the time to write a comment. Forget the robo emails. USFWS assures me "it is not a popularity contest". Volume counts for nothing.
What matters is that you tell USFWS what you would like to see happen and why. Any information to support your position will be meaningful and helpful.
Do not just say I don't like the program and I want it shut down. Take the time to say why you are taking your position. There is more than enough factual information in this thread to remove this program from our State and to also discontinue it. In most all of my posts I am careful to document what I state. Feel free to use those links and FOIA docs.
I thank you for your help.
Comment submission: You may submit written comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS-R4-ES-2017-0006, which is the docket number for this action. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2017-0006; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
I saw you comment on it this morning. Those people are uninformed. A first year law student could get someone off the hook if they were ever charged for shooting a "Red Wolf".
CRC
Old Mossy Horns
You see where Gov Cooper appointed a wolf program supporter to the NCWRC?
Jett
Ten Pointer
Len Lisenbee is a retired Special Agent with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
Lisenbee: It’s time to end the ‘red wolf’ scandal
Science may end the debate over this hybrid, but the problem won’t go away anytime soon
There is no doubt that the red wolf, which at one time inhabited much of the coastal regions of the Southeastern U.S. and some other areas, is endangered. After all, the biologists running this “program” state rather definitively that there are only 29 of them currently to be found in the wild.
There is only one problem; a rather large problem if the truth be told, with these critters.
According to the best scientists and genetics experts, the red wolf is not a species at all. Never has been. It is instead a hybrid result of gray wolves mating with coyotes. And that little fact sure tosses a hand grenade into the old manure pile. You see, a lot of scientists, researchers, and red wolf supporters have gone out on a very slender branch with their support, including so-called historical support, of this “species.”
In an attempt to find and solidify that historical record of red wolves existing as a distinct species for many years, decades or even centuries, experts searched all available records to insure that no stone was left unturned. And their “proof” appeared to have been discovered in four very old red wolf hides, with one apparently pre-dating the Civil War. The very best genetics experts were employed to analyze this evidence so that no possible mistakes could be made.
Can you guess what they found when the results were formally analyzed?
If you guessed a cross-breeding between a gray wolf and a coyote, grab the cigar. All of those pelts, along with other “samples” of possible partial red wolf hides from ancient Cherokee, Creek and Choctaw Indian dress garb, were thoroughly tested. Every tested item proved to be either wolf, coyote or wolf-coyote hybrid.
In other words, there is not now nor has there ever been a unique animal species that either is or was a red wolf. But there are plenty of red faces because a lot of individuals have known about this pending scandal for a very long time.
What scandal, you may be asking? The red wolf has long been one of the federal government’s “marquee” endangered species programs. Many millions of dollars have been spent to prevent it from going into the abyss of extinction. Millions more have been budgeted for future research. And worst of all, some of those scientists already knew about the cross-breeding before all of this news came bubbling out. Are they guilty of fraud? Or malfeasance?
Any decision by federal officials to delist the species would essentially result in the extermination for the red wolf. There are historical records of these hybrid critters roaming across the Southeast for a very long time. There are only 29 red wolves left in the wild. And the only reason they still exist there is because of federal protection efforts and the spending of millions of taxpayer dollars.
This species of animal is not an endangered species, and can never be allowed to claim that title without severe changes in the law and a lot of related regulations. The science clearly indicates red wolves from the very beginning were nothing more than a hybrid between a coyote and a gray wolf. As a proven hybrid, it should be delisted immediately.
But there are a lot of red wolf supporters, and they can be expected to fight this issue even though the latest science is not on their side. They will surely point out that the red wolf was given complete government protection in 1967. And, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spent almost 50 years and some $35 million just trying to save it from extinction.
The recovery program involves 44 zoos and almost 2 million acres of private land and federal refuge. And there have been massive trapping and captive breeding programs (after releasing 132 wolves to the wild). And yet as of today there are only two breeding pairs left in the wild.
Oh, and the feds are still spending about $1.5 million a year.
So what will it take to make the red wolf scandal disappear? First, don’t hold your breath. Too much effort has already been expended to make it go away anytime soon. But the facts are plain to see. The red wolf was declared extinct in the wild in 1980. The feds then collected what they considered to be 400 pure red wolves in the bayous of Louisiana and East Texas based on appearances only, but not based on genetics.
Essentially the feds invented a species and then called it endangered. In all probability, they knew this was a hybrid from the very beginning.
Oh, and there is another slight problem that now much be contended with. I mentioned that more than a hundred so-called red wolves have been released from breeding programs into the wilds of the Carolinas and north Georgia. Well, it seems that nature took over at that point, and the red wolves quickly bred with local coyotes, producing an especially hardy “super hybrid” that multiplied faster than the biologists could contain.
So, in order to deal with these new threats, the feds did what they do best, which is to screw things up even more. They tried trapping and sterilizing the hybrids to halt their new-found proliferation. They also went “den hunting,” killing hybrid newborns using water buckets and hammers. And animal rights advocates supported these grotesque techniques as necessary in order to remove the coyotes while saving the wolf.
Friends and neighbors, this is a really stupid situation that should never have had a beginning and now may never have an end. There is one obvious fact staring everyone in the face, and it is that there never was a “red wolf” species. Coyotes and gray wolves have been interbreeding for countless centuries, which is why we in New York have our own problems with “eastern” coyotes.
But this situation does highlight one important fact. There are all sorts of outdoor dummies doing all sorts of stupid, or dumb, or illegal things. And it is apparent that, when given the nearly unlimited funding of the federal budget, fed by our tax dollars, federal bureaucrats can soar high above other outdoor dummies if given half a chance.
Len Lisenbee is the Daily Messenger’s Outdoors Writer. Contact him at lisenbee@frontiernet.net.
Len Lisenbee is a retired Special Agent with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
http://www.mpnnow.com/sports/20161009/lisenbee-its-time-to-end-red-wolf-scandal
Lisenbee: It’s time to end the ‘red wolf’ scandal
Science may end the debate over this hybrid, but the problem won’t go away anytime soon
There is no doubt that the red wolf, which at one time inhabited much of the coastal regions of the Southeastern U.S. and some other areas, is endangered. After all, the biologists running this “program” state rather definitively that there are only 29 of them currently to be found in the wild.
There is only one problem; a rather large problem if the truth be told, with these critters.
According to the best scientists and genetics experts, the red wolf is not a species at all. Never has been. It is instead a hybrid result of gray wolves mating with coyotes. And that little fact sure tosses a hand grenade into the old manure pile. You see, a lot of scientists, researchers, and red wolf supporters have gone out on a very slender branch with their support, including so-called historical support, of this “species.”
In an attempt to find and solidify that historical record of red wolves existing as a distinct species for many years, decades or even centuries, experts searched all available records to insure that no stone was left unturned. And their “proof” appeared to have been discovered in four very old red wolf hides, with one apparently pre-dating the Civil War. The very best genetics experts were employed to analyze this evidence so that no possible mistakes could be made.
Can you guess what they found when the results were formally analyzed?
If you guessed a cross-breeding between a gray wolf and a coyote, grab the cigar. All of those pelts, along with other “samples” of possible partial red wolf hides from ancient Cherokee, Creek and Choctaw Indian dress garb, were thoroughly tested. Every tested item proved to be either wolf, coyote or wolf-coyote hybrid.
In other words, there is not now nor has there ever been a unique animal species that either is or was a red wolf. But there are plenty of red faces because a lot of individuals have known about this pending scandal for a very long time.
What scandal, you may be asking? The red wolf has long been one of the federal government’s “marquee” endangered species programs. Many millions of dollars have been spent to prevent it from going into the abyss of extinction. Millions more have been budgeted for future research. And worst of all, some of those scientists already knew about the cross-breeding before all of this news came bubbling out. Are they guilty of fraud? Or malfeasance?
Any decision by federal officials to delist the species would essentially result in the extermination for the red wolf. There are historical records of these hybrid critters roaming across the Southeast for a very long time. There are only 29 red wolves left in the wild. And the only reason they still exist there is because of federal protection efforts and the spending of millions of taxpayer dollars.
This species of animal is not an endangered species, and can never be allowed to claim that title without severe changes in the law and a lot of related regulations. The science clearly indicates red wolves from the very beginning were nothing more than a hybrid between a coyote and a gray wolf. As a proven hybrid, it should be delisted immediately.
But there are a lot of red wolf supporters, and they can be expected to fight this issue even though the latest science is not on their side. They will surely point out that the red wolf was given complete government protection in 1967. And, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spent almost 50 years and some $35 million just trying to save it from extinction.
The recovery program involves 44 zoos and almost 2 million acres of private land and federal refuge. And there have been massive trapping and captive breeding programs (after releasing 132 wolves to the wild). And yet as of today there are only two breeding pairs left in the wild.
Oh, and the feds are still spending about $1.5 million a year.
So what will it take to make the red wolf scandal disappear? First, don’t hold your breath. Too much effort has already been expended to make it go away anytime soon. But the facts are plain to see. The red wolf was declared extinct in the wild in 1980. The feds then collected what they considered to be 400 pure red wolves in the bayous of Louisiana and East Texas based on appearances only, but not based on genetics.
Essentially the feds invented a species and then called it endangered. In all probability, they knew this was a hybrid from the very beginning.
Oh, and there is another slight problem that now much be contended with. I mentioned that more than a hundred so-called red wolves have been released from breeding programs into the wilds of the Carolinas and north Georgia. Well, it seems that nature took over at that point, and the red wolves quickly bred with local coyotes, producing an especially hardy “super hybrid” that multiplied faster than the biologists could contain.
So, in order to deal with these new threats, the feds did what they do best, which is to screw things up even more. They tried trapping and sterilizing the hybrids to halt their new-found proliferation. They also went “den hunting,” killing hybrid newborns using water buckets and hammers. And animal rights advocates supported these grotesque techniques as necessary in order to remove the coyotes while saving the wolf.
Friends and neighbors, this is a really stupid situation that should never have had a beginning and now may never have an end. There is one obvious fact staring everyone in the face, and it is that there never was a “red wolf” species. Coyotes and gray wolves have been interbreeding for countless centuries, which is why we in New York have our own problems with “eastern” coyotes.
But this situation does highlight one important fact. There are all sorts of outdoor dummies doing all sorts of stupid, or dumb, or illegal things. And it is apparent that, when given the nearly unlimited funding of the federal budget, fed by our tax dollars, federal bureaucrats can soar high above other outdoor dummies if given half a chance.
Len Lisenbee is the Daily Messenger’s Outdoors Writer. Contact him at lisenbee@frontiernet.net.
Len Lisenbee is a retired Special Agent with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
http://www.mpnnow.com/sports/20161009/lisenbee-its-time-to-end-red-wolf-scandal
Last edited:
Take 'em
Six Pointer
Liberals never let the facts get in the way of a good emotional argument. Woofers are all liberals.
Jett
Ten Pointer
Here is the NCWRC public comment on the proposed Red Woof rule by Director Gordon Myers:
Part 1:
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
July 24, 2017
Public Comments Processing
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2017-0006
Division of Policy
Performance and Management Programs
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters
5275 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803
Subject: FWS-R4-ES-2017-0006
Nonessential Experimental Population of Red Wolves (Canis rufus) in North Carolina
Dear Acting Director Sheehan:
This letter is to provide comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) in response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) scoping request (FR Doc. 2017-10551) for input on the proposal to change the goal of the non-essential experimental population (NEP) project for red wolves (Canis rufus) on the Albemarle Peninsula (AP), North Carolina. The goal change proposed by the Service would be to transition the current NEP Project from a goal of establishing a self-sustaining wild population of red wolves to a goal of supporting a viable captive red wolf breeding program (FR Doc. 2017-100551). The Service has put forth three alternatives: 1) maintain the NEP project with no changes in the I O(j) rule, 2) eliminate the NEP project, retaining endangered status for red wolves found in the wild, and 3) revise the NEP with other revisions to the 10(j) rule. None of these alternatives are realistic. The Service has omitted the most reasonable and achievable alternative. As I will explain herein, a fourth alternative should be added to this National Environmental Policy Act evaluative process. The fourth alternative should include the following:
1) Termination of the free-ranging NEP project on the AP,
2) Declaration of the red wolf as extinct in the wild,
3) Capture and removal from the wild of all designated red wolves and their offspring currently on the AP with translocation to the SSP population, and
4)Declaration that all free-ranging canids on the AP are state-trust resources under the management jurisdiction of the NCWRC.
Red wolves were listed as endangered in 1967 under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, initiating intensive recovery efforts. During the fall of 1973, the Service established a recovery program for the red wolf based on belief that a pure population of red wolves existed in southeast Texas and adjacent areas of Louisiana. Field work revealed extensive hybridization with coyotes across the limited remaining red wolf range. Hybridization with coyotes threatened the continued existence of the species. Therefore, all recovery efforts were redirected from protecting animals in the wild to a planned extirpation from the wild. This extreme decision to forcibly extirpate red wolves from the wild highlighted the immediate and significant threat of inter-specific breeding with coyotes. Red wolves were declared biologically extinct in the wild in 1980.
Between 1973 and 1980, 400 animals were collected from the wild to produce 14 morphologically selected founders, that would ultimately serve as a source population for the canids first released onto Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (ARNWR) in 1987 (Hinton et al. 2013). In 1986, the Service promulgated rules that provided for removal of red wolves from the Species Survival Plan Population (SSP) captive breeding program to establish a reintroduction experiment on federal lands in northeastern North Carolina. The location was selected for the following key reasons:
• It met the recovery plan goal of abundant federal lands with habitat and prey base characteristics presumed to be suitable for red wolves;
-The surrounding area had a relatively low human population; and
• Coyotes were practically non-existent on the landscape, which supported the recovery plan objective that the population be self-sustaining
The reintroduction was designated an NEP in accordance with section 10 (j) of the Endangered Species Act because the red wolf was secure in the captive breeding program. The Service's final rules stated the Service would limit their release of wolves to no more than 12 animals due to concerns about possible adverse impacts to the species resulting from removal of wolves from the captivive breeding program. However, according to Service records, 165 wolves were released between 1986 and 2014 of which 130 came from the captive breeding program and 64 occurred on private lands — actions not authorized in the Service's rules nor congruent with the goals of managing red wolves on federal lands and safeguarding the SSP.
The red wolf recovery program is predicated upon the Service's stated goal in their 1986, 1991, and 1995 rules of establishing a self-sustaining population on federal lands managed under 100) rules to minimize negative impacts of red wolves on private lands. Since initiation ofthe restoration project, active management of habitats to benefit red wolves on federal lands has been minimal, resulting in the animals using private lands (Hinton 2014), a scenario inconsistent with stated Service goals. Predominate use of private lands by red wolves continues to increasingly impact land-use options for these landowners, impacts also inconsistent with Service goals and rules (Wildlife Management Institute 2014).
In addition to the lack of quality habitat on federal lands, increases in coyote populations resulting in red wolf hybridization and introgression have threatened the viability of a unique red wolf population in the wild. These conditions, along with halting unauthorized releases of wolves have accentuated the inability to maintain a self sustaining population of red wolves in the area. Inbreeding depression and vehicular and gunshot mortality are also known to have affected red wolf population growth and viability (Hinton et al. 2013). Furthermore, the propensity of red wolves to use privately-owned lands has led to landowner conflicts, these conflicts will continue to increase over time as predicted changes in land use and availability in the area take place. Current and predicted conditions make restoration and management of a selfsustaining population of red wolves on federal lands on the AP unachievable.
Part 1:
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
July 24, 2017
Public Comments Processing
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2017-0006
Division of Policy
Performance and Management Programs
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters
5275 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803
Subject: FWS-R4-ES-2017-0006
Nonessential Experimental Population of Red Wolves (Canis rufus) in North Carolina
Dear Acting Director Sheehan:
This letter is to provide comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) in response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) scoping request (FR Doc. 2017-10551) for input on the proposal to change the goal of the non-essential experimental population (NEP) project for red wolves (Canis rufus) on the Albemarle Peninsula (AP), North Carolina. The goal change proposed by the Service would be to transition the current NEP Project from a goal of establishing a self-sustaining wild population of red wolves to a goal of supporting a viable captive red wolf breeding program (FR Doc. 2017-100551). The Service has put forth three alternatives: 1) maintain the NEP project with no changes in the I O(j) rule, 2) eliminate the NEP project, retaining endangered status for red wolves found in the wild, and 3) revise the NEP with other revisions to the 10(j) rule. None of these alternatives are realistic. The Service has omitted the most reasonable and achievable alternative. As I will explain herein, a fourth alternative should be added to this National Environmental Policy Act evaluative process. The fourth alternative should include the following:
1) Termination of the free-ranging NEP project on the AP,
2) Declaration of the red wolf as extinct in the wild,
3) Capture and removal from the wild of all designated red wolves and their offspring currently on the AP with translocation to the SSP population, and
4)Declaration that all free-ranging canids on the AP are state-trust resources under the management jurisdiction of the NCWRC.
Red wolves were listed as endangered in 1967 under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, initiating intensive recovery efforts. During the fall of 1973, the Service established a recovery program for the red wolf based on belief that a pure population of red wolves existed in southeast Texas and adjacent areas of Louisiana. Field work revealed extensive hybridization with coyotes across the limited remaining red wolf range. Hybridization with coyotes threatened the continued existence of the species. Therefore, all recovery efforts were redirected from protecting animals in the wild to a planned extirpation from the wild. This extreme decision to forcibly extirpate red wolves from the wild highlighted the immediate and significant threat of inter-specific breeding with coyotes. Red wolves were declared biologically extinct in the wild in 1980.
Between 1973 and 1980, 400 animals were collected from the wild to produce 14 morphologically selected founders, that would ultimately serve as a source population for the canids first released onto Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (ARNWR) in 1987 (Hinton et al. 2013). In 1986, the Service promulgated rules that provided for removal of red wolves from the Species Survival Plan Population (SSP) captive breeding program to establish a reintroduction experiment on federal lands in northeastern North Carolina. The location was selected for the following key reasons:
• It met the recovery plan goal of abundant federal lands with habitat and prey base characteristics presumed to be suitable for red wolves;
-The surrounding area had a relatively low human population; and
• Coyotes were practically non-existent on the landscape, which supported the recovery plan objective that the population be self-sustaining
The reintroduction was designated an NEP in accordance with section 10 (j) of the Endangered Species Act because the red wolf was secure in the captive breeding program. The Service's final rules stated the Service would limit their release of wolves to no more than 12 animals due to concerns about possible adverse impacts to the species resulting from removal of wolves from the captivive breeding program. However, according to Service records, 165 wolves were released between 1986 and 2014 of which 130 came from the captive breeding program and 64 occurred on private lands — actions not authorized in the Service's rules nor congruent with the goals of managing red wolves on federal lands and safeguarding the SSP.
The red wolf recovery program is predicated upon the Service's stated goal in their 1986, 1991, and 1995 rules of establishing a self-sustaining population on federal lands managed under 100) rules to minimize negative impacts of red wolves on private lands. Since initiation ofthe restoration project, active management of habitats to benefit red wolves on federal lands has been minimal, resulting in the animals using private lands (Hinton 2014), a scenario inconsistent with stated Service goals. Predominate use of private lands by red wolves continues to increasingly impact land-use options for these landowners, impacts also inconsistent with Service goals and rules (Wildlife Management Institute 2014).
In addition to the lack of quality habitat on federal lands, increases in coyote populations resulting in red wolf hybridization and introgression have threatened the viability of a unique red wolf population in the wild. These conditions, along with halting unauthorized releases of wolves have accentuated the inability to maintain a self sustaining population of red wolves in the area. Inbreeding depression and vehicular and gunshot mortality are also known to have affected red wolf population growth and viability (Hinton et al. 2013). Furthermore, the propensity of red wolves to use privately-owned lands has led to landowner conflicts, these conflicts will continue to increase over time as predicted changes in land use and availability in the area take place. Current and predicted conditions make restoration and management of a selfsustaining population of red wolves on federal lands on the AP unachievable.
Last edited:
Jett
Ten Pointer
Part 2:
On September 12, 2016, the Service issued a new call to action as it announced recommended decisions in response to an ongoing evaluation of the Red Wolf Recovery Program. The Service's decision memorandum states the wild red wolf population is projected to crash in as few as 8 years. It further concedes the species is currently not secure in captivity and recommends the captive breeding population be increased to approximately 400 animals with a minimum of 52 breeding pairs. Today, 12 founder lines are represented in the wild and captive populations. As of January 1, 2015 the captive population contained 207 wolves and 29 breeding pairs which is far short of the identified needs. The Service has identified this change as the highest priority for the red wolf recovery program.
The Service outlined proposed changes to the RWRP (USFWS 2016) following several program reviews (Faust et al. 2016, Group Solutions Inc. 2016, Wildlife Management Institute 2014). The proposed changes focused on managing the NEP and SSP as one meta-population (Faust et al. 2016). The Service proposed to restrict the wild population to the federal lands within Dare County, while reincorporating most of the animals found of NEP into the SSP to increase the genetic diversity of the SSP (Faust et al. 2016, Group Solutions Inc. 2016).
The Service's recommendation to maintain a small population of intensively managed red wolves on federal lands as part of a meta-population in Dare County is inconsistent with the captive breeding population priority objectives. Nearly 30 years after the first reintroductions and despite tubal ligations and vasectomies of coyotes, releases of 165 wolves, including 58 in Dare County, there is only one known wolf pack occupying federal lands. As red wolf restoration was being implemented on the AP, coyote distribution and density was increasing across the RWRA. Although historically absent, by 1985 coyotes had begun expanding their range into the AP (NCWRC unpubl. data, Hinton et al. 2012, Murray et al. 2014). Coyotes now occur, and can be locally abundant, throughout the entire RWRA (NCWRC unpubl. data). In the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012, reported numbers of coyotes trapped statewide increased 2600%.
Hybridization with coyotes was the impetus for forced extirpation of red wolves from the wild three decades ago. The Service has acknowledged the challenge of recovering a species which is reliant on private lands (USFWS 2016). ARNWR and the Dare County Bombing Range do not, and will not, contain adequate resources that will result in red wolves remaining on federal lands
(Hinton 2014). Thus, attempting to anchor the RWRA on inadequate federal lands is unrealistic and will put the burden on private land owners in adjacent counties. Further, the recent Population Viability Analysis (PVA) report indicates the NEP has a 2.38 times higher risk of mortality than the SSP.
The red wolf recovery program is predicated upon the Service's stated goal in their 1986, 1991, and 1995 rules of establishing a self-sustaining population on federal lands managed under 100) rules to minimize negative impacts of red wolves on private lands. Since initiation ofthe restoration project, active management of habitats to benefit red wolves on federal lands has been minimal, resulting in the animals using private lands (Hinton 2014), a scenario inconsistent with stated Service goals. Predominate use of private lands by red wolves continues to increasingly impact land-use options for these landowners, impacts also inconsistent with Service goals and rules (Wildlife Management Institute 2014).
In addition to the lack of quality habitat on federal lands, increases in coyote populations resulting in red wolf hybridization and introgression have threatened the viability of a unique red wolf population in the wild. These conditions, along with halting unauthorized releases of wolves have accentuated the inability to maintain a self sustaining population of red wolves in the area. Inbreeding depression and vehicular and gunshot mortality are also known to have affected red wolf population growth and viability (Hinton et al. 2013). Furthermore, the propensity of red wolves to use privately-owned lands has led to landowner conflicts, these conflicts will continue to increase over time as predicted changes in land use and availability in the area take place. Current and predicted conditions make restoration and management of a selfsustaining population of red wolves on federal lands on the AP unachievable.
On September 12, 2016, the Service issued a new call to action as it announced recommended decisions in response to an ongoing evaluation of the Red Wolf Recovery Program. The Service's decision memorandum states the wild red wolf population is projected to crash in as few as 8 years. It further concedes the species is currently not secure in captivity and recommends the captive breeding population be increased to approximately 400 animals with a minimum of 52 breeding pairs. Today, 12 founder lines are represented in the wild and captive populations. As of January 1, 2015 the captive population contained 207 wolves and 29 breeding pairs which is far short of the identified needs. The Service has identified this change as the highest priority for the red wolf recovery program.
The Service outlined proposed changes to the RWRP (USFWS 2016) following several program reviews (Faust et al. 2016, Group Solutions Inc. 2016, Wildlife Management Institute 2014). The proposed changes focused on managing the NEP and SSP as one meta-population (Faust et al. 2016). The Service proposed to restrict the wild population to the federal lands within Dare County, while reincorporating most of the animals found of NEP into the SSP to increase the genetic diversity of the SSP (Faust et al. 2016, Group Solutions Inc. 2016).
The Service's recommendation to maintain a small population of intensively managed red wolves on federal lands as part of a meta-population in Dare County is inconsistent with the captive breeding population priority objectives. Nearly 30 years after the first reintroductions and despite tubal ligations and vasectomies of coyotes, releases of 165 wolves, including 58 in Dare County, there is only one known wolf pack occupying federal lands. As red wolf restoration was being implemented on the AP, coyote distribution and density was increasing across the RWRA. Although historically absent, by 1985 coyotes had begun expanding their range into the AP (NCWRC unpubl. data, Hinton et al. 2012, Murray et al. 2014). Coyotes now occur, and can be locally abundant, throughout the entire RWRA (NCWRC unpubl. data). In the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012, reported numbers of coyotes trapped statewide increased 2600%.
Hybridization with coyotes was the impetus for forced extirpation of red wolves from the wild three decades ago. The Service has acknowledged the challenge of recovering a species which is reliant on private lands (USFWS 2016). ARNWR and the Dare County Bombing Range do not, and will not, contain adequate resources that will result in red wolves remaining on federal lands
(Hinton 2014). Thus, attempting to anchor the RWRA on inadequate federal lands is unrealistic and will put the burden on private land owners in adjacent counties. Further, the recent Population Viability Analysis (PVA) report indicates the NEP has a 2.38 times higher risk of mortality than the SSP.
The red wolf recovery program is predicated upon the Service's stated goal in their 1986, 1991, and 1995 rules of establishing a self-sustaining population on federal lands managed under 100) rules to minimize negative impacts of red wolves on private lands. Since initiation ofthe restoration project, active management of habitats to benefit red wolves on federal lands has been minimal, resulting in the animals using private lands (Hinton 2014), a scenario inconsistent with stated Service goals. Predominate use of private lands by red wolves continues to increasingly impact land-use options for these landowners, impacts also inconsistent with Service goals and rules (Wildlife Management Institute 2014).
In addition to the lack of quality habitat on federal lands, increases in coyote populations resulting in red wolf hybridization and introgression have threatened the viability of a unique red wolf population in the wild. These conditions, along with halting unauthorized releases of wolves have accentuated the inability to maintain a self sustaining population of red wolves in the area. Inbreeding depression and vehicular and gunshot mortality are also known to have affected red wolf population growth and viability (Hinton et al. 2013). Furthermore, the propensity of red wolves to use privately-owned lands has led to landowner conflicts, these conflicts will continue to increase over time as predicted changes in land use and availability in the area take place. Current and predicted conditions make restoration and management of a selfsustaining population of red wolves on federal lands on the AP unachievable.
Last edited:
Jett
Ten Pointer
Part 3:
On September 12, 2016, the Service issued a new call to action as it announced recommended decisions in response to an ongoing evaluation of the Red Wolf Recovery Program. The Service's decision memorandum states the wild red wolf population is projected to crash in as few as 8 years. It further concedes the species is currently not secure in captivity and recommends the captive breeding population be increased to approximately 400 animals with a minimum of 52 breeding pairs. Today, 12 founder lines are represented in the wild and captive populations. As of January 1, 2015 the captive population contained 207 wolves and 29 breeding pairs which is far short of the identified needs. The Service has identified this change as the highest priority for the red wolf recovery program.
The Service outlined proposed changes to the RWRP (USFWS 2016) following several program reviews (Faust et al. 2016, Group Solutions Inc. 2016, Wildlife Management Institute 2014). The proposed changes focused on managing the NEP and SSP as one meta-population (Faust et al. 2016). The Service proposed to restrict the wild population to the federal lands within Dare County, while reincorporating most of the animals found of NEP into the SSP to increase the genetic diversity of the SSP (Faust et al. 2016, Group Solutions Inc. 2016).
The Service's recommendation to maintain a small population of intensively managed red wolves on federal lands as part of a meta-population in Dare County is inconsistent with the captive breeding population priority objectives. Nearly 30 years after the first reintroductions and despite tubal ligations and vasectomies of coyotes, releases of 165 wolves, including 58 in Dare County, there is only one known wolf pack occupying federal lands. As red wolf restoration was being implemented on the AP, coyote distribution and density was increasing across the RWRA. Although historically absent, by 1985 coyotes had begun expanding their range into the AP (NCWRC unpubl. data, Hinton et al. 2012, Murray et al. 2014). Coyotes now occur, and can be locally abundant, throughout the entire RWRA (NCWRC unpubl. data). In the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012, reported numbers of coyotes trapped statewide increased 2600%.
Hybridization with coyotes was the impetus for forced extirpation of red wolves from the wild three decades ago. The Service has acknowledged the challenge of recovering a species which is reliant on private lands (USFWS 2016). ARNWR and the Dare County Bombing Range do not, and will not, contain adequate resources that will result in red wolves remaining on federal lands
(Hinton 2014). Thus, attempting to anchor the RWRA on inadequate federal lands is unrealistic and will put the burden on private land owners in adjacent counties. Further, the recent Population Viability Analysis (PVA) report indicates the NEP has a 2.38 times higher risk of mortality than the SSP.
Finally, current alternate interpretations of genetic data raise biological and policy questions as to the origin of the red wolf as a species, its genetic uniqueness relative to coyotes (or other canids, Canis sp.), and its qualification for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There are currently three hypotheses regarding the taxon's relationship to coyotes and other canids; (Brzeski et al. 2016, Nowak 2003, vonHoldt et al. 2016, 2017, Hohenlohe et al. 2017, Wayne and Jenks 1991, Wilson et al. 2000):
1) red wolves are a distinct species developed from an ancestral species (C. mosbachensis) after an initial North American invasion by the modern wolf lineage I .5 mya by C. etruscus,
2) red wolves are a hybrid of gray wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes, or
3) red wolves are a subspecies or form of gray wolf.
On September 12, 2016, the Service issued a new call to action as it announced recommended decisions in response to an ongoing evaluation of the Red Wolf Recovery Program. The Service's decision memorandum states the wild red wolf population is projected to crash in as few as 8 years. It further concedes the species is currently not secure in captivity and recommends the captive breeding population be increased to approximately 400 animals with a minimum of 52 breeding pairs. Today, 12 founder lines are represented in the wild and captive populations. As of January 1, 2015 the captive population contained 207 wolves and 29 breeding pairs which is far short of the identified needs. The Service has identified this change as the highest priority for the red wolf recovery program.
The Service outlined proposed changes to the RWRP (USFWS 2016) following several program reviews (Faust et al. 2016, Group Solutions Inc. 2016, Wildlife Management Institute 2014). The proposed changes focused on managing the NEP and SSP as one meta-population (Faust et al. 2016). The Service proposed to restrict the wild population to the federal lands within Dare County, while reincorporating most of the animals found of NEP into the SSP to increase the genetic diversity of the SSP (Faust et al. 2016, Group Solutions Inc. 2016).
The Service's recommendation to maintain a small population of intensively managed red wolves on federal lands as part of a meta-population in Dare County is inconsistent with the captive breeding population priority objectives. Nearly 30 years after the first reintroductions and despite tubal ligations and vasectomies of coyotes, releases of 165 wolves, including 58 in Dare County, there is only one known wolf pack occupying federal lands. As red wolf restoration was being implemented on the AP, coyote distribution and density was increasing across the RWRA. Although historically absent, by 1985 coyotes had begun expanding their range into the AP (NCWRC unpubl. data, Hinton et al. 2012, Murray et al. 2014). Coyotes now occur, and can be locally abundant, throughout the entire RWRA (NCWRC unpubl. data). In the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012, reported numbers of coyotes trapped statewide increased 2600%.
Hybridization with coyotes was the impetus for forced extirpation of red wolves from the wild three decades ago. The Service has acknowledged the challenge of recovering a species which is reliant on private lands (USFWS 2016). ARNWR and the Dare County Bombing Range do not, and will not, contain adequate resources that will result in red wolves remaining on federal lands
(Hinton 2014). Thus, attempting to anchor the RWRA on inadequate federal lands is unrealistic and will put the burden on private land owners in adjacent counties. Further, the recent Population Viability Analysis (PVA) report indicates the NEP has a 2.38 times higher risk of mortality than the SSP.
Finally, current alternate interpretations of genetic data raise biological and policy questions as to the origin of the red wolf as a species, its genetic uniqueness relative to coyotes (or other canids, Canis sp.), and its qualification for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There are currently three hypotheses regarding the taxon's relationship to coyotes and other canids; (Brzeski et al. 2016, Nowak 2003, vonHoldt et al. 2016, 2017, Hohenlohe et al. 2017, Wayne and Jenks 1991, Wilson et al. 2000):
1) red wolves are a distinct species developed from an ancestral species (C. mosbachensis) after an initial North American invasion by the modern wolf lineage I .5 mya by C. etruscus,
2) red wolves are a hybrid of gray wolves (Canis lupus) and coyotes, or
3) red wolves are a subspecies or form of gray wolf.
Last edited:
Thanks, Jett. Unless I'm reading this wrong, Gordon and the commission are laying down the gauntlet. "End the program and let the state manage the leftovers" is my read. That sound about right?
Jett
Ten Pointer
Part 4:
Of these hypotheses, results of the only whole-genome study (vonHoldt et al. 2016) indicate that red wolves lack the divergent ancestry expected if the taxon represents a distinct genetic lineage and a unique species. An assumption in analyses by vonHoldt et al. (2016) was that red wolves had a phylogenetically distinct origin followed by admixture. The exact timing of admixture is unknown, but has been identified as "recent" by vonHoldt et al. (2016). Despite this recent admixture, the Service chose the original founders for the SSP by morphometric similarity to, but not necessarily genetic uniqueness from, presumptive wild red wolves. This approach was adopted by the Service because when the species was described and subsequently listed, current genetic analysis techniques were not available. However, recent research using modern genetic techniques, has indicated that the red wolves used for the captive breeding program had a high fraction of gray wolf ancestry, and lacked sufficient differentiation from gray wolves or coyotes to be considered a distinct species (vonHoldt et al. 2016).
Conclusions by vonHoldt et al. (2016) have been challenged by Hohenlohe et al. (2017) who concluded conversely that genomic data used by vonHoldt et al. (2016) support continued recognition of red wolves as a distinct taxon. However, vonHoldt et al. (2017) found "no convincing genetic arguments for distinct species status of the red wolf." As an example, they compare genetic differentiation of red wolves and other canids in North America to genetic differentiation among continental human populations that have a common evolutionary lineage (vonHoldt et al. 2017). Because the animals comprising the SSP lack genetic uniqueness, protection under the ESA by the Service is in error.
Regardless of whether the red wolves in the SSP are listable under the ESA, there is a clear and present danger of losing the SSP. Of the PVA model simulations, the scenario under which the SSP captive breeding program capacity is increased to 400 animals and all NEP wolves are brought into program yielded a 91.2% chance of maintaining the genetic diversity for at least 150 years as set forth in the Red Wolf Recovery Plan.
Additionally, under the alternatives presented, the degree of intensive management required to recapture wolves that leave federal lands or address the perpetual threat of hybridization with coyotes would inevitably encumber critical financial and human resources that should instead be used to expand capacity within the SSP. The best decision to safeguard genetic diversity in the SSP is to capture the remaining wolves in northeastern NC, safely secure them in the captive breeding program, and redirect available resources towards increasing the capacity of those facilities.
The three proposed program alternatives in FR Doc. 2017-10551 are unrealistic modifications of failed elements of the NEP project. These alternatives are not in the best interest of red wolf recovery, natural resource conservation, or the public on the AP. Therefore, I strongly urge the Service to consider the fourth alternative proposed in these comments. This alternative will enable the Service to resolve the issue of red wolf taxonomy while assuring the animals are reproductively isolated from coyotes.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on these important resource conservation issues and to remain an active participant in canid management on the Albemarle Peninsula. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Gordon S. Myers
Executive Director
Of these hypotheses, results of the only whole-genome study (vonHoldt et al. 2016) indicate that red wolves lack the divergent ancestry expected if the taxon represents a distinct genetic lineage and a unique species. An assumption in analyses by vonHoldt et al. (2016) was that red wolves had a phylogenetically distinct origin followed by admixture. The exact timing of admixture is unknown, but has been identified as "recent" by vonHoldt et al. (2016). Despite this recent admixture, the Service chose the original founders for the SSP by morphometric similarity to, but not necessarily genetic uniqueness from, presumptive wild red wolves. This approach was adopted by the Service because when the species was described and subsequently listed, current genetic analysis techniques were not available. However, recent research using modern genetic techniques, has indicated that the red wolves used for the captive breeding program had a high fraction of gray wolf ancestry, and lacked sufficient differentiation from gray wolves or coyotes to be considered a distinct species (vonHoldt et al. 2016).
Conclusions by vonHoldt et al. (2016) have been challenged by Hohenlohe et al. (2017) who concluded conversely that genomic data used by vonHoldt et al. (2016) support continued recognition of red wolves as a distinct taxon. However, vonHoldt et al. (2017) found "no convincing genetic arguments for distinct species status of the red wolf." As an example, they compare genetic differentiation of red wolves and other canids in North America to genetic differentiation among continental human populations that have a common evolutionary lineage (vonHoldt et al. 2017). Because the animals comprising the SSP lack genetic uniqueness, protection under the ESA by the Service is in error.
Regardless of whether the red wolves in the SSP are listable under the ESA, there is a clear and present danger of losing the SSP. Of the PVA model simulations, the scenario under which the SSP captive breeding program capacity is increased to 400 animals and all NEP wolves are brought into program yielded a 91.2% chance of maintaining the genetic diversity for at least 150 years as set forth in the Red Wolf Recovery Plan.
Additionally, under the alternatives presented, the degree of intensive management required to recapture wolves that leave federal lands or address the perpetual threat of hybridization with coyotes would inevitably encumber critical financial and human resources that should instead be used to expand capacity within the SSP. The best decision to safeguard genetic diversity in the SSP is to capture the remaining wolves in northeastern NC, safely secure them in the captive breeding program, and redirect available resources towards increasing the capacity of those facilities.
The three proposed program alternatives in FR Doc. 2017-10551 are unrealistic modifications of failed elements of the NEP project. These alternatives are not in the best interest of red wolf recovery, natural resource conservation, or the public on the AP. Therefore, I strongly urge the Service to consider the fourth alternative proposed in these comments. This alternative will enable the Service to resolve the issue of red wolf taxonomy while assuring the animals are reproductively isolated from coyotes.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on these important resource conservation issues and to remain an active participant in canid management on the Albemarle Peninsula. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Gordon S. Myers
Executive Director
Last edited:
Jett
Ten Pointer
Part 5:
Bibliography:
Brzeski, K. E., DeBiasse, M. B., Rabon Jr, D. R., Chamberlain, M. J., and Taylor, S. S. 2016.
Mitochondrial DNA variation in southeastern pre-Columbian canids. Journal of Heredity, 107(3), 287-293.
Faust, L.J., Simonis, J.s., Harrison, R., Waddell, W., Long, S. 2016. Red Wolf (Canis rufus) Population Viability Analysis — Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago.
Federal Register Doc. 2017-10551 (Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0006). 2017. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Nonessential Experimental Population of Red Wolves (Canis rufus) in North Carolina. 82(98): 23518-23520.
Group Solutions, Inc. 2016. Red wolf recovery team recommendations. Alpharetta, GA.
Hinton, J.W., 2014. Red wolf (Canis rufus) and coyote (Canis latrans) ecology and interactions in northeastern North Carolina (Doctoral Thesis, University of Georgia).
Hinton, J.W., M.J. Chamberlain, and D.R. Rabon, Jr. 2013. Red wolf (Canis rufus) recovery: a review with suggestions for future research. Animals, 3:722-744.
Hinton, J.W., Chamberlain, M.J. and F.T. van Manen. 2012. Long-distance movements of transient coyotes in eastern North Carolina. The American Midland Naturalist, 168(2): 281-288.
Hohenlohe, P. A., Rutledge, L. Y., waits, L. P., Andrews, K. R., Adams, J. R., Hinton, J. W., and White, B. N. 2017. Comment on "Whole-genome sequence analysis shows two endemic species of North American wolf are admixtures ofthe coyote and gray wolf'. Science Advances, 3(6), el 602250.
Murray, D.L., G. Bastille-Rousseau, J.R. Adams, and L.P. Waits. 2014. The challenges of red wolf conservation and the fate of an endangered species recovery program. Conservation Letters,
Nowak, R. M. 2003. Wolf evolution and taxonomy. Wolves: Behavior, ecology, and conservation, 239-258.
USFWS. 2016. Memorandum: Recommended decisions in response to Red Wolf Recovery Program evaluation. September 12, 2016, pg. 1-10.
vonH01dt, B.M., Cahill, J.A., Fan, Z., Gronau, L, Robinson, J., Pollinger, J.P., Shapiro, B., wall, J., and Wayne, R.K. 2016. Whole-genome sequence analysis shows that two endemic species of North American wolf are admixtures of the coyote and gray wolf. Science Advances, 2, e1501714-e1501714.
vonH01dt, B.M., Cahill, J. A., Gronau, 1., Shapiro, B., wall, J., and Wayne, R. K. 2017. Response to Hohenlohe et al. Science Advances, 3(6), el 701233.
Wayne, R. K., and Jenks, S. M. 1991. Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf Canis rufus. Nature, 351 (6327), 565.
Wildlife Management Institute, Inc. 2014. A comprehensive review and evaluation of red wolf (Canis rufus) recovery program.
Wilson, P. J., Grewal, S., Lawford, 1. D., Heal, J. N., Granacki, A. G., Pennock, D., Theberge, J.B., Theberge, M.T., Voigt, D.R., Waddell, W., and Chambers, R. E. 2000. DNA profiles of the eastern Canadian wolf and the red wolf provide evidence for a common evolutionary history independent of the gray wolf. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78(12), 2156-2166.
Bibliography:
Brzeski, K. E., DeBiasse, M. B., Rabon Jr, D. R., Chamberlain, M. J., and Taylor, S. S. 2016.
Mitochondrial DNA variation in southeastern pre-Columbian canids. Journal of Heredity, 107(3), 287-293.
Faust, L.J., Simonis, J.s., Harrison, R., Waddell, W., Long, S. 2016. Red Wolf (Canis rufus) Population Viability Analysis — Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lincoln Park Zoo, Chicago.
Federal Register Doc. 2017-10551 (Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2017-0006). 2017. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Nonessential Experimental Population of Red Wolves (Canis rufus) in North Carolina. 82(98): 23518-23520.
Group Solutions, Inc. 2016. Red wolf recovery team recommendations. Alpharetta, GA.
Hinton, J.W., 2014. Red wolf (Canis rufus) and coyote (Canis latrans) ecology and interactions in northeastern North Carolina (Doctoral Thesis, University of Georgia).
Hinton, J.W., M.J. Chamberlain, and D.R. Rabon, Jr. 2013. Red wolf (Canis rufus) recovery: a review with suggestions for future research. Animals, 3:722-744.
Hinton, J.W., Chamberlain, M.J. and F.T. van Manen. 2012. Long-distance movements of transient coyotes in eastern North Carolina. The American Midland Naturalist, 168(2): 281-288.
Hohenlohe, P. A., Rutledge, L. Y., waits, L. P., Andrews, K. R., Adams, J. R., Hinton, J. W., and White, B. N. 2017. Comment on "Whole-genome sequence analysis shows two endemic species of North American wolf are admixtures ofthe coyote and gray wolf'. Science Advances, 3(6), el 602250.
Murray, D.L., G. Bastille-Rousseau, J.R. Adams, and L.P. Waits. 2014. The challenges of red wolf conservation and the fate of an endangered species recovery program. Conservation Letters,
Nowak, R. M. 2003. Wolf evolution and taxonomy. Wolves: Behavior, ecology, and conservation, 239-258.
USFWS. 2016. Memorandum: Recommended decisions in response to Red Wolf Recovery Program evaluation. September 12, 2016, pg. 1-10.
vonH01dt, B.M., Cahill, J.A., Fan, Z., Gronau, L, Robinson, J., Pollinger, J.P., Shapiro, B., wall, J., and Wayne, R.K. 2016. Whole-genome sequence analysis shows that two endemic species of North American wolf are admixtures of the coyote and gray wolf. Science Advances, 2, e1501714-e1501714.
vonH01dt, B.M., Cahill, J. A., Gronau, 1., Shapiro, B., wall, J., and Wayne, R. K. 2017. Response to Hohenlohe et al. Science Advances, 3(6), el 701233.
Wayne, R. K., and Jenks, S. M. 1991. Mitochondrial DNA analysis implying extensive hybridization of the endangered red wolf Canis rufus. Nature, 351 (6327), 565.
Wildlife Management Institute, Inc. 2014. A comprehensive review and evaluation of red wolf (Canis rufus) recovery program.
Wilson, P. J., Grewal, S., Lawford, 1. D., Heal, J. N., Granacki, A. G., Pennock, D., Theberge, J.B., Theberge, M.T., Voigt, D.R., Waddell, W., and Chambers, R. E. 2000. DNA profiles of the eastern Canadian wolf and the red wolf provide evidence for a common evolutionary history independent of the gray wolf. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 78(12), 2156-2166.
Last edited:
Jett
Ten Pointer
Thanks for your assistance Tipmoose with my issues in posting this document!
I especially want to thank Director Myers for this thoughtful, honest and well documented response to the proposed red woof rule.
This has been quite a journey, but with the true facts of this scandal now on the table, I believe a responsible USFWS will end this failed and fraudulent program in our State.
I especially want to thank Director Myers for this thoughtful, honest and well documented response to the proposed red woof rule.
This has been quite a journey, but with the true facts of this scandal now on the table, I believe a responsible USFWS will end this failed and fraudulent program in our State.
Last edited:
newlake
Four Pointer
Responsible USFWS? What is that?
Jett
Ten Pointer
Excellent point Newlake! I am going to remain positive though.
The days of a rogue and arrogant USFWS Field Office bullying us around in eastern NC are coming to an end. They have been exposed to the top levels of our government. Remember, "Elections have consequences".
I got this picture off my camera today...
Last edited:
odie408
Ten Pointer
That's a healthy looking coyote.
BR549
Twelve Pointer
"Red Wolf" restoration scandal
What do you get when you artificially breed a gray wolf with a Common Coyote in captivity?
The Truth -
What do you get when you artificially breed a gray wolf with a Common Coyote in captivity?
The Truth -
Last edited:
ellwoodjake
Twelve Pointer
Good luck finding a shooter with this measly reward;
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/01564f91-526f-37ce-8d68-7654c6cd4235/$15,500-reward-offered-after.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/01564f91-526f-37ce-8d68-7654c6cd4235/$15,500-reward-offered-after.html
- Status