"Red Wolf" restoration scandal

Next Step - Draft a Bill (already been done)

From: Bryan, Bobby [mailto:bobby.bryan@oah.nc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 10:04 AM
To: Tara Zuardo
Cc: Masich, Molly

Subject: RE: Thank you!

Tara,

The General Assembly enacts legislation. They do this by at least one
member introducing a bill which, when it passes both houses and is not
vetoed by the Governor, becomes a law. Sometimes the law may authorize an
Executive Branch agency such as the WRC to adopt rules to implement that
law. The WRC would propose a rule and accept public comment on it. After
the comment period has expired, WRC will decide to either adopt the
proposed rule, adopt the rule with changes, or not adopt the rule. If WRC
adopts any version of the rule, it must submit the rule to RRC.

RRC will review the rule to determine if the rule meets the RRC standards for
review. If the rule does not meet the RRC standards, RRC will notify the
WRC of the problem and WRC can attempt to rewrite the rule to resolve the
problem. RRC will then review any rewritten rule. Unless the RRC approves
the rule, it will not become effective. Most rules become effective the
first day of the month after approval by RRC. However, if the RRC receives
requests from at least 10 persons, clearly asking for legislative review
of the rule, by 5 p.m. the day after it approves the rule, the rule is
then subject to a delayed effective date and the possibility of
legislative disapproval.

The delayed effective date is generally to the 31st legislative day of the
next regular session of the General Assembly that begins at least 25 days
after the RRC approves the rule. During the first 30 days, any member of
the GA may introduce a bill to disapprove the rule. If no bill is
introduced, the rule becomes effective that 31st legislative day. If a
bill is introduced to disapprove the rule but does not pass, the rule will
become effective the date the GA adjourns for that session. If the bill
becomes law, the rule will not become effective.

There are a couple of exceptions, one of which may be of concern to you.
If the rule meets the criteria for the adoption of a temporary rule in
G.S. 150B-21.1, WRC may adopt the rule as a temporary rule at the time the
rule receives the 10 letters subjecting the permanent rule to legislative
review. Temporary rules are not directly subject to legislative review
and can become effective almost immediately. If the GA enacts legislation
disapproving the permanent rule, the temporary rule will then expire.
The 10 letters simply puts the effective date of the permanent rule on
hold. If nothing happens at the GA, the rule will ultimately become
effective. It is up to the people opposed to the rule to find a legislator
to introduce a bill and try to have the bill enacted into law. There
otherwise is no formal review at the GA. There would be no reason for a
legislator to introduce a bill identical to a rule since rules have the
same binding effect as legislation.

You may send letters requesting legislative review to my attention.
Comments addressing the RRC standards of review should be sent to each RRC
member, the RRC attorney handling the rule, and to the WRC.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have more questions.

Bobby

Bobby Bryan
Office of Administrative Hearings/
Rules Review Commission
919-431-3079

Animal Welfare Institute Conference Call and State Listings

"Tara Zuardo" <tara@awionline.org>
04/06/2012 06:09 PM To
"david_rabon@fws.gov" <david_rabon@fws.gov>
cc DJ Schubert <dj@awionline.org>, "cfox@projectcoyote.org"
<cfox@projectcoyote.org>

Subject Conference Call - NC coyote night hunting

Hi David,

Thank you so much for agreeing to have a conference call with myself, our
Wildlife Biologist D.J., and Wildlife Consultant Camilla Fox on Wednesday
April 11 at 1pm EDT. As I mentioned, I may need to reschedule if D.J. is
selected for jury duty, but hopefully he won’t be. AWI’s conference call
in line is +1 (218) 862-6420, access code 128015.

I suspect that most of our questions will focus on FWS’ coyote management
within the red wolf recovery program, implications that surrounding
penning facilities have on the red wolves there, and potential local
allies on the night hunting and penning issues, but I know that we also
have some remaining questions about why the state does not recognize the
red wolf as a protected species and the politics surrounding this issue.

I so appreciate you taking this additional time to speak with us, given
all of assistance and information you’ve already given me. D.J. and
Camilla are more familiar with these issues in general, so it will be very
helpful for them to have a chance to speak with you directly.

Thanks, and have a great weekend!

Tara

Tara C. Zuardo, Esq., J.D.
Wildlife Associate
Animal Welfare Institute
900 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington D.C. 20003
Tel: 202-446-2148
Fax: 202-446-2131
tara@awionline.org

So let's get this straight, in 1980 the Hybrid Wolf Mill over at the Point Defiance Zoo held 58 Wolves in captivity.

However NOT ALL had been "Certified"??

Who knows what "Year" the founders became founders?

WOLF NEWSLETTER

Vol. I, No. I
Fall / Winter, 1988





So in 1973, the VERY first goal was to 1) Certify the Genetics. Fast forward to 1980 and not all of the 58 Captive Canids "have" been Certified!!!

This is a key to unlocking the Hybrid Baseline Box, you see they started will hybrids that bred hybrids (1977 Studbook) then secretly tried to reverse engineer the red wolf by selectively back crossing.

Folks this is their words and data… You can not make it up!! Let me say it again, not one single red wolf in NC is or has ever been protected by the ESA!

Update - Landowner Removal Request

URGENT - USFWS Is caught repeating the "Same" Lie in "2016" as in "1998"!!


Red Wolf Newsletter
Vol. 8, No. I
Summer / Fall 1995



Attention all Landowners whom have formally requested the USFWS "Remove" their Wolves from Your Private Land!!! If you have ever wondered exactly how the USFWS "Interpreted" your removal provision…


Fast Forward to December, 1998 - keeping in mind the SAME Federal (removal) Rule "Applies" unless your Brian Kelly of USFWS!!!




Now Fast Forward to 1999



Fast Forward to 2016 - Understand we continue to operate under the same 2005 Federal (removal) Rules, so why the same LIES and Dodging 14 years later?

Date: March 22, 2016 at 5:32:55 PM EDT
To: pete_benjamin@fws.gov
Cc: cynthia_dohner@fws.gov, Leopoldo Miranda <leopoldo_miranda@fws.gov>, Jett Ferebee <jettferebee@aol.com>, Dan Ashe <d_m_ashe@fws.gov>, gary_frazer@fws.gov, "Rep. George Cleveland" <George.Cleveland@ncleg.net>, gordon.myers@ncwildlife.org, John Clark <john.clark@sampsonbladen.com>, John Coley <coley@bpropnc.com>, Jim Cogdell <jcogdell@forkstables.com>, John Bell <John.Bell@ncleg.net>

Subject: Pete - What has changed?

Pete, Good afternoon.

The below (attachment) is very clear and explicit as to what steps must be taken prior to you issuing the required take permit to a private landowner and or their agent. Your past actions of permit issuance on three separate occasions support the below protocol explicitly.

Please provide written documentation of any law or federal rule that has since changed thus expressly prohibiting you from following the published rules we are all extremely knowledgable of.



Mr. Ferebee has done more to protect the Red Wolves than perhaps any other landowner yet the service has never acknowledged this fact given the expense he has incurred to proactively cooperate with FWS and ensure proper care of each trapped Red Wolf that he continues to return to you. Some even numerous times.

Your office is missing the best opportunity you may ever have to take what continues to prove to be such a disaster and make it a positive! For example, I would certainly contact Mr. Ferebee and request documentation of his Trapping Expense, Cost to Acquire multiple kennel crates and I would issue him a check like yesterday, and have Tom draft a joint press release that highlights how this has been a learning experience for all, it goes to show how even in the most difficult situations the Service is committed to working with private landowners while acknowledging shortcomings along the way.

The continued track of your failure to issue Mr. Ferebee his requested take permit as you have multiple times previously and afforded a well documented precedent of severely and I do mean severely continuing to erode private landowner trust.

Pete, you see Mr. Ferebee's standing take permit request has nothing at all to do with "Shooting" a Red Wolf rather it has everything to do with FWS following the law, FWS's own federal rules and upholding the promises that were clearly communicated to the private landowners. I think we all know upon Mr. Ferebee receiving his requested take permit, he would likely continue on his quest by choosing to not harm a Red Wolf but to continue his coordination with you in returning each.

Since you issued the last take permit I must alert you to one glowing and obvious change. However, not a change in law or the federal rule. This change happens to be a pending suit by DOW, RWC and AWI where as they have demanded that FWS resume their previously halted management practices of Adaptive Management that is founded in the removal of nursing pups which once removed and separated from their nursing mothers each is dispatched to death.

Allow me to submit to you, that it is very clear that FWS remains content being bullied into not following the law, federal rule and most important keeping their word by three NGO's whom have no interest what so ever in the best interest of animals and wildlife rather only ensuring a "Marketable" Keystone Canid remains on the landscape allowing their business plan to continue which is "Pimp'ing" the Public Trusts Assets for Profit, while "Owning" the USFWS.

If the FWS wanted to send a strong message it would issue 550 take permits as requested months ago by the submission of landowner letters.

Pete, do not allow any NGO to circumvent and compromise your duty to the public to 1) Follow the Law 2)Abide by the agreed Federal Rules and 3) Issue Mr. Freebees take permit.

Using the recent words of Dan... Right now your "Stuck in the mud up to your running boards and can't move fwd or backwards". It's time for the Service to take back control of its own agency that has been selfishly hijacked by a few NGO's.

Let us know on the permit, would expect say noon tomm given you only have to change the date!

Introducing Red Wolf &quot;Live&quot; HDTV ~ Monday Nights 8:30 9:30 PM




Broadcasting "Live" from the "BatCave"... Red Wolf TV~Live - Tune in Monday nights 8:30-9:30 Each Week for an interactive show!



Each viewer by simply clicking on the link below will enjoy "Live" 1080 HD Quality from any mobile device, laptop and or streaming TV.

You will be able at ask the panel questions and get answers live. Again go to the below link and log on each Monday night to get the latest on the USFWS Red Wolf Program!

https://livestream.com/accounts/18814327/CitizensScienceTV

And before someone ask, no this is not a joke! You can expect a good show and learn a lot! Best of all we now can educate many around the world via Live HDTV!

WOW! I'll have to pick up some popcorn. Can't wait, should be interesting.

BR549 said:

Broadcasting "Live" from the "BatCave"... Red Wolf TV~Live - Tune in Monday nights 8:30-9:30 Each Week for an interactive show!

Each viewer by simply clicking on the link below will enjoy "Live" 1080 HD Quality from any mobile device, laptop and or streaming TV.

You will be able at ask the panel questions and get answers live. Again go to the below link and log on each Monday night to get the latest on the USFWS Red Wolf Program!

https://livestream.com/accounts/18814327/CitizensScienceTV

Click to expand...

OK were going to go live here @ 10:00 Tonight, however we will not be in the Newly Created BatCave Studio. We will be remote but what the heck lets talk Red Wolves!! So text and email your buddies and colleagues this will be good stuff!!

T-20!!

Were Rollin &quot;Live&quot; with Retired USFWS Whistle Blower Jim Beers

Log on now, were going to keep this going tonight for a while!

Use the link in the post above to log on! Feel free to post any questions on the live TV feed and we will get Jim Beers to comment! Keep in mind were not in the studio tonight rather thought we would have somewhat of a flashmob live show rite quick!

Loving it!

Archived Tonight's Broadcast Below

Tonight's Broadcast below

http://livestream.com/accounts/18814327/CitizensScienceTV/videos/119457550

Ron, still waiting for you to deliver the DNA analysis from the 14 founders of all red wolves alive today. We know the DNA records of these animals are saved somewhere. Let's lay all the other stuff to rest and focus your energy to validate this is not a hybrid. If you can't or won't produce the records then, we can only conclude the obvious.

Here is a link to where the red wolf discussion has moved. Please continue the debate!

http://forum.citizensscience.org/index.php/board,2.0.html

Opening this back up as there is info that needs to be shared. I will not tolerate personal attacks on anyone that presents an opposing viewpoint. If this gets abused again, the violators will be banned. Keep it informational, sensible and rational.

Mike

http://www.defenders.org/press-release/north-carolina-state-legislative-committee-calls-killing-red-wolf-recovery-program

There's now pending legislation in both the NC and US legislature that will put an end to this program. Please be sure to contact your representatives to show them that you support them in their moves to continue in their attempts to stop this program.

Renewal of Take Authorization Request

From: Jett Ferebee <jettferebee@aol.com>

To: pete_benjamin <pete_benjamin@fws.gov>; michael.anderson7 <michael.anderson7@usdoj.gov>; d_m_ashe <d_m_ashe@fws.gov>; cynthia_dohner <cynthia_dohner@fws.gov>;

Cc: leopoldo_miranda <leopoldo_miranda@fws.gov>; arthur_beyer <arthur_beyer@fws.gov>; cynthia_dohner <cynthia_dohner@fws.gov>; gordon.myers <gordon.myers@ncwildlife.org>;

Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2016 12:00 pm

Attachments: forgotten requests(1...pdf (105 KB)

Pete,

On February 27th (see email below), you stated this in regards to my take permit authorization request:

"I'll be happy to share information with you about the animal and I've got your request for a take authorization letter, which I will begin to process Monday when I'm back in the office."

I have received no further correspondence from you regarding this pending take authorization.

On June 22, USFWS DOJ attorneys filed this in Federal Court (see attached):

"As you are aware, the Service previously told Plaintiffs that it has no intention or plan to issue any take authorizations pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 17.84(c)(4)(v) during the pendency of this district
court case. See Attached 3/16/16 Letter."

"Since this litigation began, the Service has issued no take authorizations pursuant to 50 C.F.R. §
17.84(c)(4)(v). Furthermore, there are no pending requests for take authorizations from private landowners to which the Service could even respond at this time."

"the Service has no current plan or intention to issue any take authorizations or to remove any wolves pursuant to 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.84(c)(4)(v) or (c)(10)"

I have concluded that there is simply no room for honesty and integrity in the Red Wolf Program (never has been) from either USFWS, the NGOs or now even the US DOJ in a Federal Court room. Not once did the DOJ attorney tell Judge Boyle of my pending take request and the FACT that removal of unwanted wolves from private lands is mandated by Federal Rules. DOJ attorneys actually said they had NO intentions of removing any unwanted wolves from private lands as mandated by Federal Rule and requested by our NCWRC.

Shame on USFWS.

Jett Ferebee
(252) 714 2774

PS. I understand the wolf I returned to you is now released. I thought you said you would share information with me regarding this wolf? When that wolf returns to my farm, based on the DOJ statement, I will have no legal means for its removal as USFWS agreed in their own Federal Rules.

Who is lying to who? Is USFWS lying to the Citizens of NC or is USFWS lying to a Federal Judge and their Plaintiffs?

Also a heads up on how the RWC Facebook is portraying Dr. David Cobb as now being a "red wolf" advocate. He participated in a scientific study that gave some credence to there once being an animal called the red wolf that was a definitive species and that they did not interbreed with coyotes. He was also clear that while a "red wolf" would prefer to mate with a "red wolf", if no mate is available, it will readily mate with other canines, specifically the western coyote. I think his position remains that of the NCWRC and stands by the resolutions that were sent to the USFWS.

Anyone heard about three wolves escaping from Sandy Ridge? Mighty fishy!

When was that, odie408?

http://forum.citizensscience.org/index.php/topic,443.msg703.html#new Not sure they are a little quiet on this.

As I see it the red wolf program will play out in one of two ways, it can stay as is and USFWS will leave the wolves on private land where they are not welcome, USFWS employees will have to come on the private land to trap and care for the wolf, where they too are not welcome or they could do as NCWRC has asked and trap the remaining wolves and put them back in the captive breeding program. USFWS doesn't know where all their wolves are but the private landowners do and may help locate the wolves to trap and save them if they are being moved out.But if they say no the wolves will stay on your private land, I don't think they will get the response they want or any help locating them. Don't leave these wolves in this hostile environment as it may be the final nail in the red wolves coffin. One way or another this red wolf program as we know it is coming to an end here. JMHO What's your opinion?

I don't think it matters what the USFWS does with the program, the coyotes will win. Coyotes will overwhelm them just like they did in Texas/Louisiana and drove them to the edge in the first place. If adaptive management were possible, why wasn't it tried before the last remnants were captured in 1987? After all, they were probably in the most suitable habitat in the country, since it was their last holdout. Coyotes are here to stay. Any coexistence will require constant human intervention, with endless funding. The minute they stop, they pendulum will swing toward the 'yotes, and all the effort and tax dollars will be for naught.

Wanted to make sure everyone was aware of this refuge meeting next week. http://forum.citizensscience.org/index.php?topic=443.msg746.html#msg746

USFWS Admits Only 12 Wolf Releases Were Ever Authorized in NC

Miranda said a review of the red wolf recovery program conducted last year found that the Wildlife Service actually does not have the authority to release more than 12 animals into the experimental population, a limit set by a 1986 permit.

Over the years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has released 132 wolves into the North Carolina experimental population&#8212;a move that has angered landowners worried about livestock predation over the years. So why did it take the agency 28 years to discover the limit was 12 wolves?

&#8220;That&#8217;s part of why we are taking the time to review it now, to figure out how that happened,&#8221; Miranda said. In the meantime, the agency decided to suspend wolf reintroductions. &#8220;We are taking a step back and evaluating the best way to move forward with red wolf recovery.&#8221;

https://www.yahoo.com/news/two-endangered-wolf-species-separate-unequal-treatment-201048270.html

odie408 said:

Wanted to make sure everyone was aware of this refuge meeting next week. http://forum.citizensscience.org/index.php?topic=443.msg746.html#msg746

Click to expand...

Never mind, from what I can gather this is not open to the neighboring landowners who are and will be effected. Just invitees from NRCS, Duke University, The Nature Conservancy, Kris Bass, and others) to help inform Refuge planning efforts. We will be informed of their plan later, but when do they ever follow a plan?

Carl Zimmer
JULY 27, 2016

The red wolf is protected by the Endangered Species Act, but a new study found that it is a mix of gray wolf and coyote DNA.

The first large study of North American wolf genomes has found that there is only one species on the continent: the gray wolf. Two other purported species, the Eastern wolf and the red wolf, are mixes of gray wolf and coyote DNA, the scientists behind the study concluded.

The finding, announced on Wednesday, highlights the shortcomings of laws intended to protect endangered species, as such laws lag far behind scientific research into the evolution of species.

The gray wolf and red wolf were listed as endangered in the lower 48 states under the Endangered Species Act in the 1970s and remain protected today, to the periodic consternation of ranchers and agricultural interests.

In 2013 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service recognized the Eastern wolf as a separate species, which led officials to recommend delisting the gray wolf. Conservationists won a lawsuit that forced the agency to abandon the plan.

The new finding sharpens a scientific question at the heart of that debate: How should the Endangered Species Act address threatened animals that are hybrids?

&#8220;What&#8217;s very exciting about this paper is that it&#8217;s using extremely powerful tools to address longstanding, challenging questions in conservation,&#8221; said Ryan Kovach, a research wildlife biologist at the United States Geological Survey who was not involved in the new study.

When Europeans arrived in North America, wolves roamed much of the continent. Farmers and ranchers almost entirely eradicated them from what is now the United States.

Over the past four decades, conservation efforts have helped a few wolf populations recover in the Rocky Mountains and around the Great Lakes. In 2015, the Fish and Wildlife Service estimated there were 5,505 wolves in the continental United States.

Those efforts were only possible thanks to the Endangered Species Act, established in 1973. The law led to a recovery program for a species known as the red wolf, or Canis rufus, believed to have originally lived in the Southeast. The last red wolves were removed from the wild in 1980, and captive-bred animals were released into the wild beginning in 1987.

The gray wolf, or Canis lupus, once ranged from the Rockies to New England. In 1978, the Fish and Wildlife Service declared it to be threatened in the lower 48 states.

In 2000, some scientists began to argue that the eastern population of gray wolves was in fact a separate species, which they called Canis lycaon. The Fish and Wildlife Service recognized that species in 2013, and officials argued that the gray wolf, now deemed to be limited to the western United States, was doing well enough to be taken off the list.

The new analysis, published in the journal Science Advances, paints a profoundly different portrait of the American wolf.

Bridgett M. vonHoldt of Princeton University and her colleagues sequenced the genomes of 12 gray wolves, six Eastern wolves, three red wolves and three coyotes, as well as the genomes of dogs and wolves from Asia.

Dr. vonHoldt and her colleagues found no evidence that red wolves or Eastern wolves belong to distinct lineages of their own. Instead, they seem to be populations of gray wolves, sharing many of the same genes.

What really sets Eastern wolves and red wolves apart, the researchers found, is a large amount of coyote DNA in their genomes.

The new study revealed that coyotes and North American wolves share a remarkably recent common ancestor. Scientists had previously estimated their ancestor lived a million years ago, but the new study put the figure at just 50,000 years ago.

&#8220;I could not have put money on it being so recent,&#8221; said Dr. vonHoldt.

That ancestor gave rise to two species &#8212; the predecessor of today&#8217;s gray wolves and that of today&#8217;s coyotes &#8212; somewhere in Eurasia. Dr. vonHoldt said that the two species then migrated into North America.

There, coyotes evolved into small predators that specialize in taking down smaller prey. Wolves took a different path, relying on their larger size and great speed to prey on moose and other big mammals.

As wolves were killed off in the East, coyotes spread from the Midwestern prairies over the past two centuries to take their place. Surviving wolves interbred with the coyotes, producing hybrid offspring.

Dr. vonHoldt and her colleagues found that the genomes of Eastern wolves that lived in Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario are half gray wolf and half coyote. Red wolves are even more mixed: Their genomes are 75 percent coyote and only 25 percent wolf.

Some wolf experts were startled by the finding and said it would require further support.

Linda Y. Rutledge, an expert on Eastern wolves, questioned whether the new study was sufficient to reject them as a separate species. Two Algonquin wolves that were part of the new study, she said, lived during a period when hybridization between coyotes and wolves was unusually common.

&#8220;They&#8217;re potentially not representative at all,&#8221; she said.

Despite her concerns, Dr. Rutledge joined Dr. vonHoldt&#8217;s lab as a research associate last year to participate in a new study on wolves, called the Canine Ancestry Project. The researchers are pooling their samples of DNA to study up to 100 wolves, coyotes and dogs from every state in the continental United States, as well as in Canadian provinces.

Robert K. Wayne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who helped conduct the new study, said the mixture of coyote and wolf DNA highlighted the need for a more sophisticated approach to conserving biological diversity.

Red and Eastern wolves still deserve protection despite their high level of coyote DNA, Dr. Wayne said, because they still carry the DNA of an endangered species: gray wolves.

With the proper management of the species&#8217; habitat, he added, natural selection could help the wolf genes become more common again.

Yet the Endangered Species Act offers no guidance about what to do with hybrid animals.

&#8220;We put things in baskets, but it doesn&#8217;t work that way in nature,&#8221; said Dr. Wayne. &#8220;We need to have a hybrid policy.&#8221;

Even if they are not pure wolves, Dr. Rutledge said, hybrid animals still play a crucial role in eastern forests as top predators. &#8220;If it can kill deer in eastern landscapes, it&#8217;s worth saving,&#8221; she said.

Wolves are not the only animals challenging traditional taxonomy. Many related species are trading genes through hybridization, either naturally or because of human activity.

&#8220;It&#8217;s a fairly broad swath of diversity,&#8221; Dr. Kovach said. &#8220;And more concerning, it&#8217;s increasing.&#8221; This was in today's New York Times.

DAILY NEWS 27 July 2016
Red wolf may lose endangered status because it&#8217;s just a hybrid
A red wolf
A red wolf (Canis rufus), in Florida
Mark Conlin/Oxford Scientific/Getty
By Bob Holmes

The red wolf, a critically endangered species living in the south-eastern US, may be nothing more than a hybrid between coyotes and the grey wolf, a new study suggests.

If so, it may lose its conservation status and protection, given that US legislation does not protect hybrids.

This could lead to loss of an important evolutionary lineage, because the red wolf is the only living repository of genes from the grey wolves that were driven near extinction in the south-eastern states by trapping and agricultural development.

Hard to count
Zoologists have struggled for many years to decide how many species of wolves live in North America. Everyone agrees on the coyote and the grey wolf, which is found all round the northern hemisphere.

The US government also recognises two others, the eastern wolf, now found in Ontario, and the red wolf, which has been bred in captivity from 12 individuals and reintroduced to the eastern US.

The issue has been difficult to resolve, partly because bounty hunting drove eastern and southern wolf populations close to extinction a century ago, which opened their habitat for coyotes to invade and hybridise with the few wolves. As a result, these wolves carry many coyote genes, making it hard to spot any genetic markers of a separate wolf species.

Now Robert Wayne, a geneticist at the University of California at Los Angeles, and his colleagues have compared whole genome sequences of 28 wolf and coyote individuals from Eurasia and North America, including eastern and red wolves.

Mix it up
The eastern and red wolves showed no evidence of independent ancestry; their genomes could be explained solely by admixture between coyotes and grey wolves.

Previous, less comprehensive studies have found genetic and morphological reasons to recognise these wolves as separate species, and others have shown that they seem to be hybrids. Wayne&#8217;s study is unlikely to settle the matter. However, it is the highest-resolution look at the problem so far, says Roland Kays of the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences in Raleigh.

If Wayne&#8217;s team is correct, it could spell trouble for the red wolf. The US Endangered Species Act makes no mention of hybrids, so the red wolf might lose its protected status &#8211; and the millions of dollars spent on captive breeding and recovery programmes.

That would be unfortunate, says Wayne, because the hybrid red wolf&#8217;s small size may mean it is better adapted than a pure grey wolf to life in the south-eastern US.

&#8220;Maybe we can&#8217;t put a grey wolf in the American south-east,&#8221; says Wayne. &#8220;Maybe the top predator has to be a smaller wolf.&#8221;

The red wolf&#8217;s situation shows that the Endangered Species Act needs to catch up to reality, says Kays. &#8220;What we&#8217;re finding with today&#8217;s high-resolution genetic tools is that hybrids are everywhere,&#8221; he says. &#8220;To say it&#8217;s a hybrid, so it&#8217;s not worth protecting, just doesn&#8217;t work anymore.&#8221;

Anyone read this yet:

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-endangered-status-because-its-just-a-hybrid/

Same article as post 4527. Wayne et al have had this position for several years. The news will come if the ESA repeals the endangered status and the state repeals the threatened status. Maybe this "new" study will promote these changes.

Mike Noles aka conman said:

Same article as post 4527. Wayne et al have had this position for several years. The news will come if the ESA repeals the endangered status and the state repeals the threatened status. Maybe this "new" study will promote these changes.

Click to expand...

Is there any kind of timeline on these possibilities? For those of us not in the know, but whom care?