"Red Wolf" restoration scandal

Status
Not open for further replies.

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
Ron, this is a serious question and it comes with no intended disrespect to you. Q: Why do so many of your posts rely on insults instead of scientific knowledge and logic? I find that very surprising.

Stiab, I will be delighted to answer that question as soon as you ask the same thing of all of the antiwolf people on this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Jett

Ten Pointer
This is directly from the USFWS 1990 Red Wolf Recovery/Species Survival Plan:

"Red wolf reintroductions into the wild will entail coordinated and cooperative efforts from many local, State, and Federal entities and
national environmental organizations, as well as the cooperation of private and corporate landowners in many areas of the Southeast. Complete species recovery permitting delisting will probably never be achieved for the red wolf. It is realistic, however, to restore carefully managed disjunct populations within portions of its historic range and to secure the genetic integrity of the species.
Addressing 1988 recovery amendments to the Endangered Species Act becomes difficult in light of specific obstacles that will surely
frustrate red wolf recovery objectives.

Defining those monetary and time requirements that would be represented as achieving delisting depends to a great extent on the success of a current experimental release of red wolves into the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in
western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee.

If this study demonstrates that red wolves successfully compete with resident coyotes, then objectives as set forth in this plan can likely be achieved. If, however, it becomes evident that the two wild canids exhibit social interactions and interbreeding, then the fate of the red wolf will likely rest with island sanctuaries where the genetic integrity of Canis rufus can be maintained only through long-term management."


Well here are the facts:

Adaptive Management (sterilization of coyotes) has failed. It was never physically possible to sterilize enough coyotes in eastern NC to make a difference. Biologists simply cannot sterilize coyotes across 1.7 million acres.

Mattamuskeet Ventures farm was used extensively by USFWS to test this hypothesis and was declared "Zone One" for adaptive management. USFWS was granted full access to this private land. This spring, with native wildlife populations falling and coyotes/hybrids increasing, MV demanded USFWS remove all wolves from their land. Wolves had not kept coyotes away as promised by USFWS biologists.

In thirty days of trapping - 2 wolves, 4 hybrids, and 10 coyotes were removed from this unique property, which served as USFWS Zone One for the most intensive USFWS "adaptive management" activities. 87.5% of trapped canids were nonwolf. 2/3s of the “wolf like” canids were actually hybrids.

In our Red Wolf Recovery Team meetings I questioned Pete Benjamin on how USFWS could possibly continue to proclaim that hybridization was under control when the evidence clearly was just the opposite. With a straight face Pete proclaimed that once a known wolf produced a litter of hybrid pups, the pups were removed from his "census pool". In other words, any hybrid canid was excluded from the statistics to determine introgression of coyote genes into the wolf genetics. So USFWS could fill eastern NC with hybrids, but as long as Pete was only sampling his "known wolves" and was excluding any hybrids, he could claim adaptive management was successful in controlling hybridization. Amazing.... I know, but this is the only way for USFWS personnel to keep the LIE going.
 
Last edited:

stiab

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
Stiab, I will be delighted to answer that question as soon as you ask the same thing of all of the antiwolf people on this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
See, that's exactly what I mean. You are a scientist (am I correct?), and I would have expected your arguments to be of a scientific nature. I understand laymen in this thread speaking from a personal perspective, but thought a representative from the scientific community would address it differently.
 

bryguy

Old Mossy Horns
"Red Wolf" restoration scandal

Oh Ronny let me count the ways that your failed understanding and use of genetics had been on display. First you make the claim that dogs and wolves are one and the same. an easily dispelled myth. It turns out dogs are more closely related to *gasp* other dogs and not wolves. There are lots of genetic studies out there that show exactly how wrong you are about dogs and wolves. They do share a common ancestor many many eons ago, but they are not genetically as similar as you have said here.
Next you talk about hybridization being a good thing. And yes it is when you are breeding animals or plants for a specific purpose. It's called hybrid vigor. But once you introduce genes from a similar animal or plant to the original 'pure' stain, what you get is no longer 'pure' it is in fact a 'hybrid'. We use to do it all the time when we topped hogs out. We would bring in new boars and sows all the time. We would even bring in different breeds....Durocs and hampshires to keep the animals from being interbred. Those were all hybrids but they were still hogs and were a different BREED, not a new species. As to hybridization, lots and lots of animals hybridize in the wild. Out west mule deer and white tails do it, although the offspring are sterile and can not reproduce. (Funny how that works that two different species hybridized and yet can't produce fertile offspring isn't it?) you can breed horses and donkeys and get an offspring called a mule......last time I checked mules were sterile. then there are some of the man made hybrids.....the liger.....the hybrid between the lion and the tiger that is......wait for it...STERILE......so again related species mate yet their offspring are sterile....wow does anyone else see a trend here? So hogs and cow that are the same species can reproduce and have fertile offspring, but yet lion and tigers and horses and donkeys can be breed and yet their offspring are sterile. So red wolves and coyotes can breed and produce fertile offspring.....wow what does that say boys and girls? Anyone? Ronny???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

bryguy

Old Mossy Horns
Ron, this is a serious question and it comes with no intended disrespect to you. Q: Why do so many of your posts rely on insults instead of scientific knowledge and logic? I find that very surprising.

Not Ron stiab but I can attempt to answer that....because he's a typical liberal. When the truth and facts dispel his position all he has left is personal attacks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Take 'em

Six Pointer
Odis, president Obama was hell on red wolves, as much as I liked him on some other issues. Wasn't entirely his fault, our do-nothing Congress was breathing down his neck itching to destroy the endangered species act.

If you think trump is an astute businessman who speaks the truth, please try to broaden your news gathering a bit. Just because he has orange hair, a golden toilet, and an illegal immigrant pornstar wife, is no reason to ignore all of the lies he keeps telling. He's not going to bring back coal, but he may well accelerate the drowning of Hyde county due to sea level rise. Of course that is just a liberal conspiracy, in reality the oceans are only going up due to mismanagement by the local wildlife refuge managers...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, I must say that with the accuracy of your "rant", you really inspire all of us that you know what you're talking about concerning wolves. Do you really believe that crap? Maybe you got it all off your trail cameras. Been to Hollywood lately? Good friends with Kathy Griffin or Johnny Depp?
 

dobber

Old Mossy Horns
i have watched some of the fun on this thread and i see a common theme. I read about the mention of the Algonquin wolves, and after living near the area for a while i know the locals there feel the same way about them as most here. We called them bush wolves and i will say their fur made for some great insulation in hats and gloves.
What i never understood is why most of the people wanting to protect these animals don't want them in the city parks in the cities they live in but will demand rural people to have them in their back yards

also for the sake of getting an answer from Ron, why are all the anti wolf people throwing insults at him?

Ok Ron, i asked now perhaps you could answer stiab's question
 
Last edited:

BR549

Twelve Pointer
"Red Wolf" restoration scandal

USFWS is getting some more good ink tonight...

Discovery Channels Homesteaders is on the hunt for Mexican Wolves that they expect killed their two dogs... While we know the Mexican Wolves are not property of USFWS nor are they authentic wolves... Meaning the storyline of this reality show is more authentic than the #FakeMexicanWolves.


39f618802dca8d4cf538622f0f7d4e84.jpg


d14511c158d32b95f809d498934974df.jpg


6d5895ce947e7c2ec46fb2caa2668167.jpg
 
Last edited:

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
i have watched some of the fun on this thread and i see a common theme. I read about the mention of the Algonquin wolves, and after living near the area for a while i know the locals there feel the same way about them as most here. We called them bush wolves and i will say their fur made for some great insulation in hats and gloves.
What i never understood is why most of the people wanting to protect these animals don't want them in the city parks in the cities they live in but will demand rural people to have them in their back yards

also for the sake of getting an answer from Ron, why are all the anti wolf people throwing insults at him?

Ok Ron, i asked now perhaps you could answer stiab's question

Fair enough, I'll answer Stiab's question.
1. your premise is false - most of my posts are all about science and reason, not insults, but you seem to have ignored those
2. the insults I have used have been pretty tame (calling Jett Ferebee "wealthy" for example - ouch!) vs. what has been directed at me: "a wolf-pimp wearing woof-goggles, butt-hurt, etc. etc."
3. I figure the people keeping this thread going, if they are happy to give out insults, they should be man enough to receive a few in return. Maybe I'm wrong about that and have hurt some feelings?
4. I must have missed the "scientists must behave like calm robots, even when they are being ignored and insulted" lecture in grad school
5. if real estate developers, insurance company owners, hunting guides, and pig breeders want to participate equally in a debate about red wolf science, then they should be held to the same standards you're trying to apply to me. If they can't be bothered to be polite or factual, why should they expect 100% calm and reason in return, especially if they are trying to be taken seriously?
 

BR549

Twelve Pointer
Just in case anyone wondered why US taxpayers are paying to breed Mexico's property (Wolves)... Stay Tuned...


In what is clearly part of the largest Endangered Species Fraud in United States, Americans discover the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has invested over $41 Million dollars genetically constructing a wolf they do not own.

Official documents obtained; "It should be noted, however, that the wolves now in the breeding program for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible are considered property of Mexico and that the federal wildlife agencies of both countries have agreed to give areas within Mexico priority in reintroduction proposals.”

It goes on to state; “Any proposal to reintroduce Mexican wolves in the United States would depend on availability of wolves from the breeding program after the priority of restoration in Mexico was met."

Current release data obtained from FWS indicates 96 Wolves have been released between 1998 - 2015 within the United States.
In sharp contrast the International Wolf Center reports Mexico wildlife officials released five Mexican wolves into an undisclosed area of Sonora, Mexico in October 2011, with only one surviving.

This begs the question; was “the priority of restoration in Mexico met?"

The FWS continues to document and confirm the Mexican Government has sole ownership and jurisdiction of all Mexican Wolves. Jack B. Wood, Acting Assistant Regional Director (AFA) wrote to Ing. Juan Jose A. Reyes Rodrigues staying in part; "It would be impossible for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to assume responsibility for Wolves owned by Mexico which were released in the U.S."
FWS Assistant regional director (AFF) wrote to Mexico stating “We informed interested zoos that program wolves and any offspring remained the property of Mexico, under the care of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)."

After repeated formal FOIA request and email communication directly to Director Ashe, the FWS has been unable to provide documentation from Mexico granting the authorization to release Mexican wolves within the United States. Additionally, FWS has been unable to provide any official document that would have transferred the ownership of Mexican wolves to the United States.

Absent any authorization from Mexico, FWS later proceeded to commingle founding pure wolves, originally trapped in Mexico by Roy McBride with other captive Mexican Wolves which showed signs of having hybridized with dogs, known as the Ghost Ranch Wolves.
Mr. McBride was outraged, on June 2, 1997 writing to David Parsons, then head of the FWS recovery effort...
"I was shocked to see that the wolves of the Ghost Ranch lineage were being included in the captive breeding program. The origin and genetics of the Ghost Ranch animals were discussed and investigated ad nausea. In fact, the conclusion by all members of the early recovery team was that the animals were wolf-dog hybrids. This one is the primary factor behind the decision to seek and capture the (7) remaining wild population, because it was the only pure genetic stock available.”

Mr. McBride on Ghost Ranch Dogs

"I was sent to inspect the Ghost Ranch animals that were in captivity at the living desert zoo at Carlsbad and the private collection of Norma Ames. Nobody, dead or alive on the planet earth, has caught as many wolves in Mexico is I have. But none of the wild wolves resembled the animals that I saw represented in this captive collection. The explanation that the Ghost Ranch animals "do not look like wolves because of captivity and diet" is science right out of the Twilight Zone. The real reason that many of the Ghost Ranch animals look like dogs is because that is what they are.”

Roy McBride on the Act (ESA)

"With the understanding that the endangered species act does not protect hybrids, all the wolves from Norma Ames and Carlsbad zoo were euthanized. Since you have now revised history, and consider the Ghost Ranch animals are actually wolves, wouldn't the anesthetizing of these wolves be considered a "taking" of endangered species? Are you likewise guilty of taking by mixing the hybrids with the wolves? How are these facts going to be handled by law-enforcement have you notified them? I have remained neutral about the reintroduction of the Mexican wolf in Arizona / New Mexico, because I don't believe it to be any of my business. But dumping out a bunch of hybrids to kill livestock, game animals, and restrict traditional activities is just taking it to far. If the Ghost Ranch animals are true wolves, then what are the animals that I took out of Mexico that are so different? And why was I sent to catch them (by FWS) when these other animals are already available? By including the Ghost Ranch hybrids in the breeding program, you are threatening the validity of genetics of the entire wolf reintroduction program, both North and South.”

Roy McBride on Court & Conviction

"When the first Mexican wolf is killed by some Rancher or Trapper, and it enters the court as a legal matter, you will never be able to convict anyone of killing a true wolf. "The early records of the recovery meetings, the credentials of the participants, and their conclusions will be contrary to your case, and are a matter of public record --- easily recovered. "You may put dog blood in the wolves, but you will never take it out. And you will forever cloud the issue of what it is you have released into the wild."
“I believe you have made a serious mistake."

Sincerely,

Roy McBride
 

stiab

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
No Ron, I didn't ignore any of your posts. Just surprised that a 'scientist' would not base his/her argument solely on the best evidence. Carry on...
 

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
Oh Ronny let me count the ways that your failed understanding and use of genetics had been on display. First you make the claim that dogs and wolves are one and the same. an easily dispelled myth. It turns out dogs are more closely related to *gasp* other dogs and not wolves. There are lots of genetic studies out there that show exactly how wrong you are about dogs and wolves. They do share a common ancestor many many eons ago, but they are not genetically as similar as you have said here.
Next you talk about hybridization being a good thing. And yes it is when you are breeding animals or plants for a specific purpose. It's called hybrid vigor. But once you introduce genes from a similar animal or plant to the original 'pure' stain, what you get is no longer 'pure' it is in fact a 'hybrid'. We use to do it all the time when we topped hogs out. We would bring in new boars and sows all the time. We would even bring in different breeds....Durocs and hampshires to keep the animals from being interbred. Those were all hybrids but they were still hogs and were a different BREED, not a new species. As to hybridization, lots and lots of animals hybridize in the wild. Out west mule deer and white tails do it, although the offspring are sterile and can not reproduce. (Funny how that works that two different species hybridized and yet can't produce fertile offspring isn't it?) you can breed horses and donkeys and get an offspring called a mule......last time I checked mules were sterile. then there are some of the man made hybrids.....the liger.....the hybrid between the lion and the tiger that is......wait for it...STERILE......so again related species mate yet their offspring are sterile....wow does anyone else see a trend here? So hogs and cow that are the same species can reproduce and have fertile offspring, but yet lion and tigers and horses and donkeys can be breed and yet their offspring are sterile. So red wolves and coyotes can breed and produce fertile offspring.....wow what does that say boys and girls? Anyone? Ronny???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A few responses, bryguy:
1. there are many different species concepts, and lack of reproductive capacity/interbreeding is only one of them. As I mentioned, it is worth keeping in mind that the species concept is a product of the human mind - nature itself is much more complex and nuanced than we give her credit for
2. that said, by your logic, dogs, wolves, and coyotes should all be one species, as they can all interbreed successfully (well maybe not wolf-chihuahuas, but you get the picture). That isn't very helpful in the field for anyone trying to tell these animals apart - little plains wolf vs big canadian wolf vs reddish southeastern wolf, etc, so I expect the zoologists will stick to calling them separate species (though maybe dogs have already been demoted to a wolf subspecies?).
3. a quick recheck of the science on dog origins shows they still think they are descended from wolves - possibly from an extinct population of wolves, but still wolves. And as noted above, they are still quite fertile with modern gray wolves - remember the craze a few years ago for buying wolf-dog hybrids (which as I recall were poorly suited for captivity)?
4. of course dogs are more closely related to each other than to wolves. If that wasn't the case, that would imply that domestication took place many, many times around the world, and that the dogs that resulted rarely interbred with each other and shared genes, which clearly isn't the case
5. the US Endangered Species Act thoughtfully applies not just to full species but also to subspecies and to distinct population segments. So even if the red wolf were nothing but a subspecies of gray wolf, or even a subspecies of coyote, it would still be listable under the ESA by virtue of its extreme rarity in the wild. If all wild North American canids are just one species, the red wolf could still be listed as a subspecies or distinct population segment, and sensibly so given its unique features.
6. there are cases of fertile mules, just FYI - not many, but it happens: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2290491.stm - the reason it doesn't work well is that horses and donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes. Wolves, dogs, and coyotes all have 78 chromosomes, which makes it much easier for them to cross.
7. even bald eagles have been known to hybridize on rare occasions with Stellars Sea Eagles - a bird in the same genus that is otherwise pretty different looking. I don't know if those offspring ever mate back into the parent population, but if they do, then that allows genes to flow between what are clearly two different species. That doesn't mean that bald eagles are somehow invalid and fit for the trash-heap, but that is what many of you are saying about red wolves.
8. one fundamental reason why you can have two groups of organisms that hybridize in the wild but still look different is that the habitat and environment may be very different where the two animals live. If the red wolves & coyotes as sister species hypothesis is correct, that would explain why they were different animals at the time of European colonization - the deer (and elk?) rich forests of the southeast were different than the great plains where the coyote was living.
9. if there was gene flow between red wolves and coyotes even before European interference, that could help explain the lack of genetic differences between them - not only would the wolves have picked up coyote genes, but the coyotes would have picked up some of the red wolf genes, making it much harder to find unique genes in one species that aren't found in the other. One of the core problems with the new vonHoldt study was that they used, as some of their reference coyotes, animals that came from places outside the historic range of coyotes, and inside the range of red wolves (and coyote-red wolf hybridization)
10. purity isn't part of any modern species definition that I'm aware of. It may be a useful concept for livestock and dog breeding (and I'm glad to hear you out-cross your pigs - seems like more dog breeders should consider the same thing, breeding the occasional setter in with their pointers, for example, nevermind what the kennel clubs would say) but it has no bearing or utility for trying to make sense of the chaotic and complex natural world that exists outside of human control.
 

BR549

Twelve Pointer
Here's something that's not been discussed...

Did the Red Wolf Recovery Team "Violate" the Endangered Soecies Act when they declared the Red Wolf "Extinct" in the Wild?
 
Last edited:

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
Jett, another explanation for what was happening at Mattamuskeet Ventures is that as the red wolf population has declined sharply over the past 5 years (and before that going back to the peak of the red wolf population in 2005/6) that has created space for the coyotes to move in. And as more wolves have been shot, that creates more opportunities for hybridization.

If the wolves were causing the deer decline on the Peninsula that some of you insist is happening (though I'm still waiting on evidence there?), then said decline should have reversed itself as the wolf population was cut by 2/3rds or more. You could say - oh but now its the coyotes - but coyotes are statewide, including here in my backyard in Durham, and there is no statewide collapse in deer numbers.

I can't make sense out of what you are claiming that Pete Benjamin told you about hybrids - it sounds bad at face value but you don't give enough details or context to be able to judge what you mean. But the latest science from Bohling et al 2016 shows that if you just look at wild canid scat samples from across the Albemarle Peninsula, less than 4% are red wolf coyote hybrids. Here's the quote: "Hybrids composed only 4% of individuals within this landscape despite co-occurrence of the two species throughout the RWEPA".
 

BR549

Twelve Pointer
Ron - WRC is currently working to realign (shorten) deer seasons and curb the bag limit of the deer harvest. Discussing 4 zones and it will be statewide. Fawn depredation, FYI.



N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Releases Deer Hunter Survey Results and Presents Possible Management Options at Public Forums

By Mike Marsh

​In May 2017, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission held nine public forums to solicit input on the direction of white-tailed deer management that could include possible changes to hunting seasons and bag limits. These forums were the second phase of a three-pronged approach to bring management of the state's white-tailed population into a modern era where hunting seasons strike a better balance between deer biology and human desires.

​The three phases include: conducting new research into deer biology and presentation of the conclusions to the public (completed in summer 2015), conducting a Deer Hunter Survey to gauge public perception about possible management strategies (completed in May 2017) and possibly presenting new season frameworks at the Commission's regularly scheduled public hearings (January 2018). If the public buys into any proposed changes to seasons and bag limits, they could become effective during the 2018-19 hunting seasons.

​During the first phase, the Commission completed biological research, including fetal sampling data from 1,468 does over the five years prior to 2015, and presented the biological assessment at public forums. The focal point was peak breeding dates because this factor has highest impact on a deer population that stands at about 1.2 million. Over the past decade, the deer harvest had been relatively stable until a statewide decline of 7 percent occurred in 2016-17 with the decline observed in all nine wildlife districts. The decline shows the Commission may have timed its new approach perfectly.

​Jon Shaw, the Commission's Deer Biologist, said the May 2017 forums were the Commission's vehicle for presenting the results of the 2016 Deer Hunter Survey. The Commission invited about 200,000 hunters, including those who said they hunted deer in previous surveys and some selected by other methods, to participate. The survey presented various season and bag limit options each of the four existing deer regions.

​"We presented the Deer Hunter Survey results at the public forums," Shaw said. "The survey had 33,750 participants, representing 17 percent of the hunters we sent the survey to. We received an average of 300 surveys per county, so it was a good overall response."

​Shaw said prior to the Commission concluding its biological evaluation in 2015, existing seasons and bag limits were sound, based on the conditions when they were established. However, the new data showed reducing young buck harvest, shifting buck harvest later and adjusting doe harvest rates would result in a more biologically balanced deer herd. He said deer harvests have been declining in the Eastern Region, stable in the Central Region and increasing in the Western Region.

​"Statewide, hunters are reporting seeing fewer deer," Shaw said. "Since 2008, antlered buck harvest has gone down 24 percent. In 2007, when we implemented bonus antlerless harvest report cards, the antlerless deer harvest increased 28 percent. Prior to that, it had been increasing six percent annually. Since 2007, antlerless harvest has declined about one percent per year. We have confidence that the population is going down due to multiple contributing factors. Predators, including coyotes, are one factor, but predator management is not a viable option. Pulling back on doe harvest is the most effective way to stabilize the population."

​For more effective management from a biological and geographical standpoint Shaw said the state should be divided into five deer management zones rather than the existing four, with Cleveland, Rutherford and Polk counties aligned with the Northwestern Zone and the current Eastern Deer Region divided into Northeastern and Southeastern zones.

​To prevent disrupting breeding effort, black powder seasons should be one week shorter and regular gun seasons should shift back. This is where hunter buy-in is important because the Deer Hunter Survey showed the length of the gun season is hunters' main concern. To compensate for shortened gun seasons up front, the Commission could extend deer hunting seasons through the first Sunday in January, which, depending upon the year could result in six more hunting days. The least impact would occur in the Southeastern Region, which could lose one week of gun season and the Northeastern Region, which could lose two.

​Other biologically sound changes would be extending the two-buck limit statewide and implementing a statewide bag limit of four antlerless deer, eliminating bonus antlerless harvest report cards and continuing the Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP), for which demand may increase.

For more information, visit http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0...ion-of-Deer-Hunting-Seasons-and-Mgt-Units.pdf.

As of this writing, the Hunter Survey Results and Potential Management Options presented at the 2017 forums is not available, but it will be available soon on the commission's website at www.ncwildlife.org.
 
Last edited:

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
I don't disagree that coyotes eat fawns and that they may be slowing the growth of the deer herd down, possibly even stabilizing it or even, in combination with the other factors noted by NC WRC (disease and human harvest patterns) causing a decline. But there are still over a million deer in the state, and the harvest last winter was nearly twice as high as the harvest in 1987 when the red wolf program began (and when some of you assert coyotes were already nosing into the state). Last winter's harvest was 7000 deer higher than 2001, when coyotes were declared statewide (or was it 2000, in which case the difference was 17000). And as I've noted before, the all-time record deer harvest was just a few years ago in 2013/2014. If the deer herd has finally stopped growing, that is likely good news - it couldn't keep growing forever, as I'm sure you recognize. Better the deer be controlled by hunters and coyotes (not to mention bear populations, which are also growing well), than by vehicle collisions, disease, and lack of food.
 

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
Another point noted by the NC WRC, in addition to human hunting pressure, predators, and disease:
"The quality of habitat may be in decline due to land use practices, including development and increased efficiency in land management, such as farming and forestry practices."
http://www.ncwildlife.org/News/deer-harvest-report-shows-78-percent-decrease-from-previous-season

Real estate development in North Carolina took a breather after 2008, but the last few years the bulldozers have been back hard at work. Every farm and forest that gets turned into condos means one less place to hunt. I'm not anti-hunting, but I am anti-habitat loss...
 

stiab

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
...You could say - oh but now its the coyotes - but coyotes are statewide, including here in my backyard in Durham, and there is no statewide collapse in deer numbers.
I don't think anyone else has used the word "collapse", but total deer take is down 21% since 2013, a fact which does not fit well into your statement quoted above. And the decrease in your home county of Durham is even greater.
 
Last edited:

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
Last thing before I go - it is also interesting to note that deer harvest rates are going up in the NC mountains - since the mountains by most accounts are where coyotes first entered NC from the west way back in the 1980's. Could be better habitat management, etc, I don't know. But it does kind of imply that coyotes aren't the end of the world for deer hunters. 30-40 years is plenty of time for coyotes to have saturated the landscape.
 

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
I don't think anyone else has used the word "collapse", but total deer take is down 21% since 2013, a fact which does not fit well into your statement quoted above. And the decrease in your home county of Durham is even greater.

Well Jett's original term was "disaster" which I've always interpreted as implying a certain degree of collapse and not just a decline since the absolute peak year on record (2013). As I noted above, development is another cause of hunting decline, and Durham has seen its share of that in recent years.

If you look at the graph here (http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Hunting/Documents/1976-2016-Deer-Harvest.pdf) it does look like the state's deer harvest has peaked and started to decline. But if you look back in the 90's to mid-2000's, you could have said the same thing, the harvest stabilized for a while. I kind of wonder if that stabilization was perhaps a signal of the impact of coyotes? But then the harvest went up again - maybe deer hunting regulations were liberalized? - and kept rising till 2013.

In any event, numbers going up and down in cycles would be much more "natural" than seeing every year with a growing deer harvest (which broadly speaking was the deer herd recovery trend from 1976 to 2013). Biology can't quite keep up with Wall Street...

[edit: Wall St can't keep up growth either, as we saw a few years ago. I wonder if there was a "Hunger Games" effect during the Great Recession of people hunting more to put meat on the table after getting laid off?]
 
Last edited:

bryguy

Old Mossy Horns
A few responses, bryguy:
1. there are many different species concepts, and lack of reproductive capacity/interbreeding is only one of them. As I mentioned, it is worth keeping in mind that the species concept is a product of the human mind - nature itself is much more complex and nuanced than we give her credit for
2. that said, by your logic, dogs, wolves, and coyotes should all be one species, as they can all interbreed successfully (well maybe not wolf-chihuahuas, but you get the picture). That isn't very helpful in the field for anyone trying to tell these animals apart - little plains wolf vs big canadian wolf vs reddish southeastern wolf, etc, so I expect the zoologists will stick to calling them separate species (though maybe dogs have already been demoted to a wolf subspecies?).
3. a quick recheck of the science on dog origins shows they still think they are descended from wolves - possibly from an extinct population of wolves, but still wolves. And as noted above, they are still quite fertile with modern gray wolves - remember the craze a few years ago for buying wolf-dog hybrids (which as I recall were poorly suited for captivity)?
4. of course dogs are more closely related to each other than to wolves. If that wasn't the case, that would imply that domestication took place many, many times around the world, and that the dogs that resulted rarely interbred with each other and shared genes, which clearly isn't the case
5. the US Endangered Species Act thoughtfully applies not just to full species but also to subspecies and to distinct population segments. So even if the red wolf were nothing but a subspecies of gray wolf, or even a subspecies of coyote, it would still be listable under the ESA by virtue of its extreme rarity in the wild. If all wild North American canids are just one species, the red wolf could still be listed as a subspecies or distinct population segment, and sensibly so given its unique features.
6. there are cases of fertile mules, just FYI - not many, but it happens: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2290491.stm - the reason it doesn't work well is that horses and donkeys have different numbers of chromosomes. Wolves, dogs, and coyotes all have 78 chromosomes, which makes it much easier for them to cross.
7. even bald eagles have been known to hybridize on rare occasions with Stellars Sea Eagles - a bird in the same genus that is otherwise pretty different looking. I don't know if those offspring ever mate back into the parent population, but if they do, then that allows genes to flow between what are clearly two different species. That doesn't mean that bald eagles are somehow invalid and fit for the trash-heap, but that is what many of you are saying about red wolves.
8. one fundamental reason why you can have two groups of organisms that hybridize in the wild but still look different is that the habitat and environment may be very different where the two animals live. If the red wolves & coyotes as sister species hypothesis is correct, that would explain why they were different animals at the time of European colonization - the deer (and elk?) rich forests of the southeast were different than the great plains where the coyote was living.
9. if there was gene flow between red wolves and coyotes even before European interference, that could help explain the lack of genetic differences between them - not only would the wolves have picked up coyote genes, but the coyotes would have picked up some of the red wolf genes, making it much harder to find unique genes in one species that aren't found in the other. One of the core problems with the new vonHoldt study was that they used, as some of their reference coyotes, animals that came from places outside the historic range of coyotes, and inside the range of red wolves (and coyote-red wolf hybridization)
10. purity isn't part of any modern species definition that I'm aware of. It may be a useful concept for livestock and dog breeding (and I'm glad to hear you out-cross your pigs - seems like more dog breeders should consider the same thing, breeding the occasional setter in with their pointers, for example, nevermind what the kennel clubs would say) but it has no bearing or utility for trying to make sense of the chaotic and complex natural world that exists outside of human control.

So the species concept is man made and therefore should be discounted, but yet these red 'wolves' are by all accounts and purposes as man made as they came and therefore by your reasoning we should readily accept them as their own unique species, group or population. That is talking out of both side of your mouth.
As to dogs and wolves and coyotes.....again in my response I stated that dogs and wolves share a common ancestor from many many eons ago. And as to genetic purity not being an issue, then why are the Feds so hell bent on keeping coyote DNA out of the red 'wolf' population?
And to your species argument, if I am not mistaken my lab I have is the exactly same species as my dads jack Russell mix, but looks entirely different. Doesn't mean the dogs are two entirely different SPECIES, just that they are two different BREEDS.
I very well understand taxonomic classifications and genetics. I have advanced degrees in marine biology and genetics, so I am not some layman 'pig farmer' as you seem so apt to want to label people who present arguments and counter points to you and your line of reasoning.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

stiab

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
...As I noted above, development is another cause of hunting decline, and Durham has seen its share of that in recent years.
Undoubtedly it has, but the deer take decline in Durham in the most recent three year period has been 42%, exactly twice the statewide average.
 

Jett

Ten Pointer
In 1986 and 1995, through 50 CFR Part 17 Rules for the Nonessential Experimental Populations of Red Wolves in North Carolina, USFWS assured the citizens of NC that wolves would only be released on the Federal Refuge land of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

Through these same rules, USFWS further assured the citizens of NC that any wolves leaving these refuges would be immediately captured and returned to these refuges.

In a text book violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, USFWS then proceeded to release 64 out of 132 wolves onto private lands throughout the five counties of Dare, Hyde, Beaufort, Tyrrell and Washington. After repeated requests by private landowners over many years, USFWS has failed to remove their wolves from the private land.

From 50 CFR Part 17 1986 Rules for Red Wolf Program State:

"It is anticipated that, because of the size and habitat characteristics of the reintroduction area, animals will remain within the boundaries of the refuge and adjacent military lands. The public will be instructed to immediately report any observation of a red wolf off Federal lands to the refuge manager. The Service will then take appropriate actions to recapture and return the animal to the refuge".

"The Service will make every effort to keep red wolves on the refuge, but if an animal leaves the refuge / bombing range area, the Service intends to capture it and return it to captivity"

"The Service currently plans to limit releases to no more than 12 animals"

"Take of animals by the public will be discouraged by an extensive information and education program and by the assurance that all introduced animals will be radio-collared and, thus easy to locate if they leave the refuge. The public will be encouraged to cooperate with the Service in attempts to maintain the animals on the release site".



- 64 wolves, almost half of the total releases, were released on private land (remember "The Service will make every effort to keep red wolves on the refuge"). Released on private land? Where was this in the deal? Obviously there are two "Services". One that tells us what we want to hear and another one that does whatever they so desire. How did this happen in a program to be managed on Federal lands? Was it done legally? What authority did USFWS have to release wolves outside of the refuge system on private land?

SPECIES ID # BIRTH DATE BL RELEASE DATE COUNTY LAND OWNERSHIP

WOLF 10304 06-May-86 C 17-Sep-90 DARE PRIVATE
WOLF 10327 12-May-87 C 17-Sep-90 DARE PRIVATE
WOLF 10397 09-Apr-90 C 17-Sep-90 DARE PRIVATE
WOLF 10398 09-Apr-90 C 17-Sep-90 DARE PRIVATE
WOLF 10399 09-Apr-90 C 17-Sep-90 DARE PRIVATE
WOLF 10426 02-May-90 C 03-Oct-90 HYDE PRIVATE
WOLF 10427 02-May-90 C 03-Oct-90 HYDE PRIVATE
WOLF 10430 02-May-90 C 03-Oct-90 HYDE PRIVATE
WOLF 10464 26-Apr-91 C 23-Aug-91 DARE PRIVATE
WOLF 10382 14-May-89 I 03-Aug-92 HYDE PRIVATE
WOLF 10517 14-Apr-92 C 03-Aug-92 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 10518 14-Apr-92 C 03-Aug-92 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 10519 14-Apr-92 C 03-Aug-92 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 10523 14-Apr-92 C 03-Aug-92 HYDE PRIVATE
WOLF 10408 10-Apr-90 C 23-Aug-93 DARE PRIVATE
WOLF 10586 18-Apr-93 C 23-Aug-93 DARE PRIVATE
WOLF 10587 18-Apr-93 C 23-Aug-93 DARE PRIVATE
WOLF 10588 18-Apr-93 C 23-Aug-93 DARE PRIVATE
WOLF 10589 18-Apr-93 C 23-Aug-93 DARE PRIVATE
WOLF 10590 18-Apr-93 C 23-Aug-93 DARE PRIVATE
WOLF 10591 18-Apr-93 C 23-Aug-93 DARE PRIVATE
WOLF 10383 14-May-89 I 15-Sep-93 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 10445 24-Apr-91 C 15-Sep-93 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 10633 02-May-93 C 15-Sep-93 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 10634 02-May-93 C 15-Sep-93 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 10448 24-Apr-91 C 02-Feb-94 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 10465 26-Apr-91 C 02-Feb-94 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 10593 18-Apr-93 S 06-Apr-95 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 10771 10-May-94 I 27-Jan-99 HYDE PRIVATE
WOLF 11088 15-Apr-00 C 26-May-00 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11061 26-Apr-00 C 02-Jun-00 WASHINGTON PRIVATE
WOLF 11062 26-Apr-00 C 02-Jun-00 WASHINGTON PRIVATE
WOLF 11063 26-Apr-00 C 02-Jun-00 WASHINGTON PRIVATE
WOLF 11064 26-Apr-00 C 02-Jun-00 WASHINGTON PRIVATE
WOLF 11076 26-Apr-00 C 02-Jun-00 WASHINGTON PRIVATE
WOLF 11077 26-Apr-00 C 02-Jun-00 WASHINGTON PRIVATE
WOLF 11078 26-Apr-00 C 02-Jun-00 WASHINGTON PRIVATE
WOLF 10982 01-May-98 I 29-Sep-00 HYDE PRIVATE
WOLF 11053 01-May-98 I 04-Oct-00 HYDE PRIVATE
WOLF 11165 01-May-01 I 21-Jan-03 HYDE PRIVATE
WOLF 11356 01-May-04 I 28-Sep-05 HYDE PRIVATE
WOLF 11463 01-May-05 I 28-Oct-06 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11547 01-May-05 I 01-Nov-06 HYDE PRIVATE
WOLF 11658 01-May-07 I 04-Aug-08 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11727 01-May-08 I 13-Apr-09 HYDE PRIVATE
WOLF 11199 4/21/02 C 5/5/02 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11202 4/21/02 C 5/5/02 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11357 4/17/04 I 5/4/04 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11358 4/17/04 I 5/5/04 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11466 5/1/06 C 5/15/06 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11469 5/1/06 C 5/15/06 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11470 5/1/06 C 5/15/06 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11471 5/1/06 C 5/15/06 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11578 4/15/07 C 4/25/07 BEAUFORT PRIVATE
WOLF 11579 4/15/07 C 4/25/07 BEAUFORT PRIVATE
WOLF 11737 4/24/09 C 5/1/09 HYDE PRIVATE
WOLF 11739 4/24/09 C 5/1/09 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11740 4/24/09 C 5/1/09 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11741 4/24/09 C 5/1/09 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11788 4/17/10 C 4/30/10 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11796 4/17/10 C 4/30/10 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11911 4/20/12 C 4/27/12 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11912 4/20/12 C 4/27/12 TYRRELL PRIVATE
WOLF 11993 4/21/13 C 5/1/13 TYRRELL PRIVATE


The mismanagement and misrepresentation of the red wolf program by USFWS is the biggest threat to the red wolf species if indeed there is such a species. The stocking of an Endangered Species on private land is and was an illegal act. Had USFWS presented a rule stating it would release wolves throughout the five county area on private land, it never would have passed. There is a big difference between claiming you will release wolves on a refuge site with a military bombing range to buffer it from private land vs releasing wolves throughout five counties on private land.

Jett Ferebee
252 714 2774
 

ellwoodjake

Twelve Pointer
Last thing before I go - it is also interesting to note that deer harvest rates are going up in the NC mountains - since the mountains by most accounts are where coyotes first entered NC from the west way back in the 1980's. Could be better habitat management, etc, I don't know. But it does kind of imply that coyotes aren't the end of the world for deer hunters. 30-40 years is plenty of time for coyotes to have saturated the landscape.
One thing missing here Ron: Coyotes have been aggressively persecuted here in the western end since they first arrived. Hunters, homeowners, farmers, and citizens in general, are taking shots at every "mutt" we see. Day or night, all year, and on all properties. I have personally shot them from the road, between posted signs and purple trees and I'm not the only one doing this. I once had a landowner of one of these "sanctuaries" to wait at my vehicle for me, but after he saw what I was dragging, gave me the thumbs up. a lot of folks are starting to call hunt them and a growing number are "dogging" since they can do it year round and KILL them. Wonder what would happen to our coyote and deer populations if the feds started stocking a super-yote and outlawed ALL coyote harvest. As much as these mutts are despised, in these parts. Full protection would not go over well
 

Mike Noles aka conman

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
Ron, if I'm the "hunting guide" you reference in point #5 of post #4809, I'd appreciate knowing at what time I've had any rebuttal that was not appropriate or scientifically factual.
 

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
One thing missing here Ron: Coyotes have been aggressively persecuted here in the western end since they first arrived. Hunters, homeowners, farmers, and citizens in general, are taking shots at every "mutt" we see. Day or night, all year, and on all properties. I have personally shot them from the road, between posted signs and purple trees and I'm not the only one doing this. I once had a landowner of one of these "sanctuaries" to wait at my vehicle for me, but after he saw what I was dragging, gave me the thumbs up. a lot of folks are starting to call hunt them and a growing number are "dogging" since they can do it year round and KILL them. Wonder what would happen to our coyote and deer populations if the feds started stocking a super-yote and outlawed ALL coyote harvest. As much as these mutts are despised, in these parts. Full protection would not go over well

Well if you've figured out a way to meaningfully control coyote populations, you should take time to write a book or magazine article about it, as lots of other people have tried. Also, it seems like you're implying that you guys in the west hate the coyote more than the folks in the non-red-wolf counties in the east (where coyote hunting is similarly unfettered), which could be true, but I'll admit to being skeptical without further evidence.

I do find it interesting that wolves and coyotes are two species hunters shoot out of hatred and spite rather than respect, admiration, and/or need for meat for the freezer. I think I would have a lot less problems with canid hunting if it was done in a more sportsmans-like way by people who respected the animals (A), and was done without the express intent of completely eradicating the predators (B). I did just read one sporting magazine article that talked about the qualities of coyotes that made them challenging game, in kind of a glowing way, so maybe not everyone hunts them purely out of spite?
 

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
Darn... Even the Deer are leaving Durham... ;)

As much as I would like to claim credit for anything going wrong with the Durham County deer population (just kidding, I like deer too, and see them every week in my backyard) - I don't think I have anything to do with it. And I doubt it is coyotes either, why would we have any more coyotes than any other Piedmont county? Anecdotally, Duke Forest had such a problem with overabundant deer that they started a bow-hunting program to cull the herds. But those deer should count in the yearly totals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top