Red wolf video

Red wolf video

L.B is a dedicated reader of this blog and a life long naturalist.................Today, he provides us with his take on the "canid soup" that likely runs through the population of North Carolina Coyotes and remnant Eastern Wolves(The Eastern Wolf Restoration Program is under review currently by the USFW)..........While I have commented previously that the Red Wolf Restoration should continue at least until there is a large enough population that might insulate itself from Coyote admixing, many, including L.B. take the position that the most resilient canid, and one that might persist into the forever despite our human interference very well could be a hybrid "Coywolf"(so named by Massachusetts biologist Jon Way)..............Able to hunt both alone and in groups, the Coywolf(Eastern Coyote) surely has demonstrated a "wily" ability to persist under all type of persecution unlike the Gray and Eastern Wolves whose more social pack nature(once disrupted, chaos and confusion and often death of remaining packmates results) has allowed humans an easier hand at their disruption and extirpation from huge expanses of their former ranges..............Nonetheless, lets get some more of those Eastern Wolves into the southeast and beyond,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and then let nature take its course producing the most fit canid to both fulfill deer catching ecological functions as well as putting up with us, the ultimate predator on the planet

Rick:

I work at the N. C. Zoo, where we captive breed Red Wolves, and some pups born here have been successfully placed in wild Red Wolf dens to be adopted and raised wild--both a population boost and genetic diversity boost for the 100 to 150 wild Red Wolves on the coast in N. C. We JUST had one of the programs representatives come and give a lecture at our zoo, updating us on how things are going(GREAT program! I hope it continues--there is an effort afoot to end it, alas!)).


Red Wolf(Eastern Wolf)

 I actually asked if anyone in her program knew of any "coywolf" genes in N. C.--they HAVE been documented as far south as Virginia so far. She didn't have any current knowledge on that, but there IS going to be an URBAN COYOTE study in Charlotte, N. C. starting up, and no doubt they'll be doing genetic tests.

 I'll be VERY surprised if various different elements of the "canis soup" don't turn up! I personally saw a local news segment a few years back where someone got film of a wild canid alongside a highway near Raleigh, N. C. To me, it did NOT look like your typical coyote--the muzzle was much heavier(1st thing I noticed), and it looked to me to be at least part Red Wolf(and regularly observing some of this "old bloodline" of "pure" Red Wolves here at the N. C. Zoo, I'm purty familiar with the differences). No doubt lots of crossbreeding has gone on--an effort is made to try and control this(a WASTE, in my opinion! 


Eastern Coyote(Coyowolf)

I'd personally take those crossbred pups and disperse them elsewhere, to get AS MUCH of that old Red Wolf genetic influence around as possible!), but no way can they get to 100% of the crosses, who then no doubt disperse widely upon maturity. Same thing happened up in the Smoky Mountain National Park back in the 1990's--though "officially" canceled(due to various problems, INCLUDING Red Wolves crossbreeding regularly with the local populous coyotes!), and "officially" reported to have retrieved all the "pure" Red Wolves, MANY hybrids remained and have continued to influence the coyote population there, as well! 


Western Coyote(they bred with Eastern Wolves to create Eastern Coyotes(Coywolves)

So that's at BOTH ENDS of the state of N. C., AND eastern Tennessee, AND these guys can disperse for many miles, so whether officialdom wants to acknowledge it, I personally believe there ARE quite a few wild coy-wolf types out there with some of the old bloodline Red Wolf influence! But remember, that's NOT official(yet...) And I say, power to them! The return of the NEW "Red Wolves"!!!.....L.B.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. U.S FISH AND WILDLIFE
2. RED WOLF RECOVERY PROGRAM
3. 
   

   Last Updated: 9/23/14

   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home Page | Department of the Interior  | USA.gov  | About the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Red Wolves and Coyotes Are red wolves and coyotes the same  species?No, red wolves (Canis rufus) and coyotes  (Canis latrans) are two separate species.  However, they are closely related  evolutionarily and do share a recent  common ancestor (see Chambers et al.  2012 for full details).  Red wolves  are larger; measuring about five feet  long nose to tail and weighing 45-80  pounds.  Coyotes are approximately   three feet in length, and weigh 25-35  pounds.  These are averages, and   there can be some size overlap between  the species given individual variation. Red Wolf:                                            Coyote: Photo credits: B.  Crawford /USFWS (red wolf), Jerry  Murray (coyote) Red wolves are mostly brown and buff  colored with some black along their  backs; there is sometimes a reddish  color behind their ears, on their muzzle,  and toward the backs of their legs.   They have tall pointed ears and long,  slender legs with large feet. Coyotes  can be observed with a variety of  color variations ranging from buff,  brown, grey, or black. Generally,  coyotes tend to have a longer,  narrower muzzle than red wolves. Red Wolf:                      Coyote: Photo credits:  B. Bartel/USFWS Do red wolves breed with coyotes?The short answer is yes, they can.  Red wolves (Canis rufus), gray  wolves (Canis lupus), coyotes  (Canis latrans), and domestic dogs  (Canis lupus familiaris) and are  capable of interbreeding and  producing fertile offspring.   While social structures and  territoriality usually prevent  such interbreeding, the  combination of a small red  wolf population, a large coyote  population, and limited space  in the recovery area can result  in a breakdown of the natural  barriers. During the initial site selection  process for the red wolf  restoration program, the  northeastern North Carolina  (NENC) Red Wolf Recovery  Area was uninhabited by  coyotes.  However, coyotes  have expanded their range  eastward; individuals were  observed in NENC beginning  in the early-1990s.   As a result, an adaptive  management plan was needed  to eliminate the threat of  hybridization.  Research has   demonstrated that sterilized  coyotes remain territorial and  continue to defend space. It is  this concept of holding space  that is being applied to manage  hybridization by providing  managers time, information,  and a higher degree of control  over the recovery landscape,  while simultaneously providing  reproductive advantage to the  red wolf.    Ultimately, sterilization is a  method that allows territorial  space to be held until that animal  can be replaced naturally or by  management actions. Sterile   “placeholder” coyotes are then  naturally replaced when the larger  red wolves displace or kill the  coyote.  Occasionally, we may  remove a coyote from an area  when we have the opportunity  to insert a wild or translocated  red wolf into that territory or  if we have a red wolf dispersing  into that area. The bottom line is that space is  limited in the recovery area.  Ideally, within the restored red  wolf population in NENC, that  space is initially best occupied  by breeding pairs of red wolves,  non-breeding mixed (red wolf/ coyote) pairs, and non-breeding  coyote pairs.  By sterilizing   coyotes, introgression of non- wolf genes will be controlled  and territories will be unavailable  for colonization by breeding  coyote pairs or red wolf-coyote  pairs.  As the red wolf population  grows, having space available for  dispersing red wolves becomes   increasingly important, and this  space is provided through natural   interspecific competition and/or  management actions. A coyote being fitted for a radio-telemetry collar.  Photo by B. Bartel/USFWS. Currently, in addition to the ~70+ radio- collared red wolves, we are actively  tracking and monitoring 60+ sterilized,  placeholder coyotes.  They are captured,  processed, and released similar to red  wolves (with the additional step of  sterilization at a local veterinary hospital).

Last Updated: 9/23/14

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home Page | Department of the Interior  | USA.gov  | About the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Frequent contributors to this blog and good friends Christopher Spatz and John Laundre have devised a way to overcome the hunter bias that has thwarted scientific focused wildlife management by state wildlife agencies, and has instead caused these Agencies to implement a "wildlife farm husbandry" paradigm that bloats the land with hoofed browsers like deer and limits the number of critical ecosystem trophic carnivores like Wolves and Pumas..................Currently, Hunter and fishermen license tag fees along with Federal fees(Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson) fuel the state wildlife Agency coffers.................................In a 2009 High Country News editorial entitled Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, outdoor journalist Hal Herring sums up the sniveling complaints by conservationists to this paradigm---- “Meanwhile, year after year, anti-hunting and allegedly pro-wildlife groups bemoan hunters’ influence over wildlife management, and celebrate the decline in hunter numbers".................. "Yet they offer no methods to replace the lost wildlife and habitat revenues that result from those declines"..........Chris and John agree it is time to stop complaining and instead time to put forth a constructive alternative source of wildlife funding that would counterbalance the influence of hunters regarding the wildlife matrix on the land-----They state:"Let's start scaring the capri off outdoor recreation industry executives making billions from wildlife watchers while complaining about wildlife management but refusing to fund wildlife"............ "If the producers and sellers won't support a wildlife excise tax, it's high time that outdoor gear consumers demand that a piece of our gear-purchase taxes get reinvested in our wildlife"................And finally, the Big ten conservation non-profits(so-called Gang of Green) like THE NATURE CONSERVANCY/SIERRA CLUB/WILDERNESS SOCIETY,, ET AL also need to step up and focus on creating a federal non-game funding answer to the current hunter focused system................Chris and John are full disclosure and reveal the truth of the current wildlife funding dilemma in saying that "Predator and wildlife advocates have no one to blame but ourselves"

CLICK ON LINK BELOW TO READ FULL ARTICLE

http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=2c2c8cf3bcd76e459d327b65f&id=0b1a0d0c16


THE COUGAR REWILDING FOUNDATION

Wildlife Recreation  Reinvestment    A Novel Formula for  Dedicated Wildlife Funding Christopher Spatz and John Laundre'

With hunters and homeowners noticing what they perceive to be an increase in Bobcat sightings, the Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection is looking to conduct field studies sometime next year to get a more scientific read on the "Bobs"................DEEP’s Wildlife Division currently averages more than 200 bobcat reports per year across the state compared to 65 such calls 20 years ago, 75 calls annually during the 90's and 115 at the turn of the century.............According to Peter Reid, the assistant director at WILDLIFE IN CRISIS in Weston, one likely reason for the apparent population increase is that bobcats have been moving their dens closer to humans to avoid contact with Coyotes, which are known to displace Bobcats to the fringes of Coyote territory....However, if this is occurring, then Connecticut Bobcats are indeed showing themselves to be adaptive as historically they shunned in-close living to humans.................."Close-in" denning in human dominated neighborhoods is very much practiced by foxes, who also are sympatric with Coyotes and who definitely make their optimum living on the perimeters of Coyote territory....................As it relates back to how man and Bobcats have historically co-existed in Connecticut,. it is a fact that they were not protected and were viewed as a threat to agriculture and more desirable game species, such as deer............ In addition, the dramatic deforestation that peaked in the 1800's greatly reduced the habitat available to bobcats................... While Bobcats do not prefer mature forest, they do flourish in areas with thick horizontal and vertical understory vegetation................... In the 1970's, a large increase in the value of bobcat pelts raised concerns that they could be extirpated from the state.......... At that time, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection reclassified the bobcat as a protected furbearer with no hunting or trapping seasons.............Even with this type protection, , housing and commercial development decreased the amount of suitable habitat confining the remnant Bobcat population to the northwestern corner of the state..................If the Bobs are indeed making a comeback, it is good to see that state Environmental Officials are stating that "Bobcats are a part of our ecosystem" and therefore a live and let live management model is what is going to be practiced......... “Our yards are part of their habitat and it’s important for people to understand that they’re here and they’re not dangerous"

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.theridgefieldpress.com/35892/bobcat-increase-triggers-population-study/&ct=ga&cd=CAIyGjg4NGE1ZjNmY2Y0NDMwYTk6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNFXjwiBVKJgEEE4-MRH_9WjCGJosQ

Bobcat increase triggers population study

By Steve Coulter on Septem

ber 27, 2014 in Latest Local News, Lead News · 0 Comments

Natural Resources Defense Council Blogger Christine Wilcox reporting on how the increase in livestock grazing in the Upper Green River area of Wyoming is causing a population sink for Grizzlies to occur there.......Conflicts between Ranchers and Griz have increased in frequency over the past decade with the USFW Service deciding not to seek a co-existence paradigm with the bruins but rather to up the number of females that can be killed in this region................Christine goes on to say-------"The Forest Service estimates that female grizzly bear survival has declined on all but two of the public grazing allotments in the Upper Green area"............ "This means that removing female grizzlies from these allotments is negatively impacting the overall Greater Yellowstone population"............... "State and federal agencies only expect female grizzlies to use this area more and more in the future, so the challenges to female (and cub) survival are only expected to increase"..............Our friend and Range Expert, George Wuerthner feels that Christine and the NRDC are approaching this BEAR SINK problem too timidly and he boldly declares that "the problem isn't finding ways for livestock and bears to co-exist, but to get rid of welfare ranching in places like the Upper Green River"............"NRDC half way measures are like saying we should keep dams on salmon streams and put in more fish ladders instead of advocating that dams be removed"

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/cwilcox/grizzly_bear_conflicts_in_the.html#.VAuQLA-VQAg.email
--- This message was sent by rick.meril@gmail.com via http://addthis.com. Please note that AddThis does not verify email addresses.
To stop receiving any emails from AddThis, please visit: http://www.addthis.com/privacy/email-opt-out?e=RYYi.DP6fvw14zn9fuU_6D__EPM8_jf2NeN.8j_8

Search 

• HOME
• ISSUES
• CONTRIBUTORS

Find NRDC on:

→ Top Stories:

 

Fracking

 

Safe Chemicals

 

Defending the Clean Air Act

Christine Wilcox’s Blog

Grizzly Bear Conflicts in the Greater

 Yellowstone Ecosystem: It's Time

 for More Solutions and Less Killing

Print this page

Posted September 5, 2014 in Saving Wildlife and WIld Places

Tags:

 

coexistence, fishandwildlifeservice, grazing,greateryellowstoneecosystem,

 grizzlybears, uppergreen, yellowstonenationalpark

More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on twitter|

|

Recent reports say conflicts with grizzly bears
 in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem were
down in 2013. That may be true for the region
as a whole (which is great news), but it’s
 definitely not the case in the Upper Green
River area of Wyoming, just southeast of
Grand Teton National Park.

   













  Grizzly bear prints near Green River 
Lakes, Upper Green River area, Wyoming

The Upper Green has been a hot spot for
 conflicts with grizzlies for more than ten
 years now. Why? Because the Upper
Green has naturally prime grizzly bear
 habitat and a yearly food source provided
 by people in the form of unprotected
livestock. This combination has led to
an increase in the number of grizzly
bears using the Upper Green area,
despite the fact that the population at
 large is no longer growing very much
 and may even be declining.

Earlier this week the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service issued a new biological 
opinion with its recommendations and
requirements for managing conflicts in
the Upper Green area. This is the third
 time in five years that the Service has
had to change the biological opinion
 because of the increasing number of
 grizzlies being killed for attacking
 livestock. It is also the third time in
five years that the agencies have
 had a chance to change the way
they address conflicts.

But rather than requiring measures to
improve coexistence with grizzly bears
 and reduce conflicts with them, the Fish
and Wildlife Service again increased the
 number of grizzly bears that it anticipates
 will be killed due to livestock grazing.
Even more alarming is the Service’s
decision to more than double the
 number of females that can be killed.

What we are left with is more grizzly
bear deaths and virtually no changes
 to address the ongoing conflicts with
 livestock. But there are effective ways
 to reduce conflicts that are good for
 livestock and good for bears. Range
 riders, electric fencing, and guard dogs
 could be used to protect livestock.
Alternative grazing practices like
keeping cattle bunched together,
 and ensuring that mothers and
calves stay together, could reduce
the chance of bears attacking cattle.
 Since calves are often targeted when
 bears attack cattle, eliminating calves
 on the Upper Green grazing allotments
 could also prove to be effective in
 reducing conflicts.

For those familiar with the area, there
is no question that implementing some
coexistence measures to reduce
conflicts with livestock would be more
difficult in the Upper Green than on other
 landscapes. The Upper Green is filled
 with steep terrain and many areas that
are harder for people to access than
 bears or livestock. But that does not
mean that we should just give up
 because solutions are more difficult
or costly.

If we want to reduce conflicts in the
Upper Green, we need to think outside
 the box. NRDC and other conservation
groups have been encouraging the
 agencies to consider creative solutions.
 For instance, stakeholders could
 work together to secure funding for
 research that would help implement
 more coexistence measures. This
would also provide information on
which coexistence practices work
best in the Upper Green area.
Wildlife Services is already researching
 some of these coexistence practices
 on other landscapes. We applaud this
work and hope that it can serve as a
 model and perhaps even a resource
 for much needed research in the Upper
Green area.

The Forest Service

 estimates that female 

grizzly bear survival has 

declined on all but

 two of the public grazing

 allotments in the 

Upper Green area. This means

 that removing

 female grizzlies from these 

allotments is 

negatively impacting the

 overall Greater 

Yellowstone population. State

 and federal

 agencies only expect female grizzlies

 to use this

 area more and more in the future, so

 the challenges

 to female (and cub) survival are only 

expected

 to increase.

Something must change if we want to ensure continued
 recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
Managing conflicts between grizzly bears, livestock
and people is critical to the long-term success of the
bruins -- not only in the Upper Green area but
throughout the entire Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Solutions exist. What we need is the resources and
 the will to implement them. Turning a blind eye to the
problem, as the Service has done here, is not the way
to go.

Photo credit: Sublette County Emergency
 Management, Jim Mitchell

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Comments

Two male Southern Pacific Rattlesnakes fighting it out for the attention of a female--What looks like courtship is actually a heavyweight boxing match---Check it out below

https://www.google.com/url?rct=j&sa=t&url=http://www.carbonated.tv/news/wild-rattlesnake-battle&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoUMTU1MTc0MTkzMjM5Mjg1OTI0OTkyGmFiYjJjMTUzNmFmNmFkNTM6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNHhW6ImP9a
-EWyd7GIHlMS8CG6T0A

This Is How Rattlesnakes Throw Down

 Suzanne Robertson

Although often mistaken for a mating ritual, these guys are not in love.

Like Us

Share The Story

via Facebook

via Facebook

via Facebook

Beautiful and deadly.  A volunteer from the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area snapped these photos of two male Southern Pacific Rattlesnakes in the Sycamore Canyon area of Southern California.

Although often mistaken for a mating ritual, these guys are not in love. Experts say these movements are males fighting for dominance.  It’s no surprise that a female is usually nearby.

The snake fight blocked a trail in both directions for over five minutes. Then each one slithered to opposite sides of the path and disappeared.  

Be sure all humans and pets stay far away from these bad boys.  The Southern Pacific rattlesnake has highly toxic venom that attacks nerve endings and the snake can easily give a fatal bite. Because the venom is so strong, bites require a much higher dose of antivenin than used with other poisonous species.