"Red Wolf" restoration scandal

Status
Not open for further replies.

NCST8GUY

Frozen H20 Guy
I don't understand the Holy Grail references at all.

I would think a "wolf" supporter would love to have a camera at the den sites as some kind of kumbiya emotional family support update type that speaks better than words. The reason I'm curious is because either "they" purposely don't put them there because they don't want the public to see what happens (is brought in for dinner) or they have put them there but won't share the pics to the public.

The reason I ask is because when I hunted in Canada, we were implored to buy wolf tags (I never really wanted to shoot a wolf though, so I didn't). And of course, I saw wolves and heard many more (even some fighting within 100 yards of me but too thick to see them until a couple flushed out of the thicket at mach 3).

I asked a guide around the campfire one night why the hate on wolves? He had set up a camera over a wolf den in late spring. Over a little over one month (if I recall correctly), he had pics of 27 (if I recall correctly) of deer fawns being carried to the into den.

I would truly love to see what is brought to the radio collared "wolf" dens over the next couple of months (because I love nature). But for some reason, I guess I'll never get to see that?

Next time I hunt Canada, I am SO buying wolf tags!!!
 

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
NCST8GUY, I was just attempting some humor, as I could tell you already had some idea in your head about the horrible carnage that a red wolf den camera would show. Lest anyone accuse me of pretending that the red wolves are vegetarians, I will remind you that I fully acknowledge the wolves are carnivores that eat other animals, including deer, rabbits, rats, nutria, raccoons, etc. The question is whether a landscape with red wolves is a landscape where hunting is no longer fun and no longer puts meat on the table for human hunters because the wolves have vacuumed up all the prey.

When you went hunting in Canada, were you successful? Did you enjoy the process and the outcome, and did the presence of live wolves perhaps even add something wild and rugged to the whole experience? If the answers are yes, why would you think that you shooting a few wolves next time would make it better?

The honest truth is that we do not have any cameras aimed at red wolf dens, and the reason is we've never asked for the location of those few dens nor for permission to potentially harass the wolves by putting cameras so close to their pups. Remember that red wolves are considered by conservation biologists, if not the people on this forum thread, as one of the rarest species in the entire world, and I would not want to be the one that makes the wolves give up their den site or injure/abandon their pups.

What do I think it would show - yes, you'd see the wolves bringing food to their pups, and yes, there would be some fawns and some adult deer haunches included. As I've pointed out recently, evidence of humans shooting deer in large numbers every winter does not translate into evidence that deer populations are endangered or declining. Same goes for the wolves - we can't confuse the fact that they eat deer with the supposition made by some on this forum that they are therefore causing faunal collapse on the Albemarle Peninsula.
 

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
The deer population at ARNWR is nothing compared to what it was 15 to 20 years ago. I don't know how many thousands of acres of cropland are on the refuge but you don't see many deer for the amount of land. 15 years ago you could ride through those farms and see 30+ deer most evenings. Now you are lucky to see one or two.

Wanchese, did you ever happen to take any pictures of those herds of deer? I believe you, but will offer a few observations:
  1. 15 years ago was still 15 years after the red wolves were reintroduced to Alligator River, so what changed in 2004-5 to make the deer go away? There is not much evidence that the wolf density in those fields on the refuge is much different than it was a couple decades ago, there isn't much room for more than a pack or two there.
  2. Just as deer adapt their behavior to heavy human hunting pressure, it could be true that the deer at the refuge have learned it isn't such a hot idea to sit around in large groups in the middle of the open fields with the wolves prowling around? We don't know much about how deer behaviorally respond to red wolf hunting pressure, but Alligator River would be the place to find out.
  3. What data do we have on black bear density at ARNWR? It is really high now, some say the highest on the east coast. While a few people on this thread pretend the bears are vegetarians, I've met at least one deer hunter at the refuge who complained that the bear were eating all the fawns. See the link I posted about the Pennsylvania studies - bears have been shown to be equal to coyotes as fawn predators in other states, and there is no evidence that bears in eastern NC have ethical concerns about eating any fawn they find in the spring.
 

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
You make no sense Ron. Are you drinking today?
Not much of a Monty Python fan are we! Well, even though you didn't explain the humor in your BC angry wolf dude video, I'll walk you through the newt sketch. So, the witch lady is metaphor for the red wolf, on trial in the court of local opinion. You're John Cleese (in the hat), making an outrageous claim (the wolves ate all of the wildlife on my farm!) and everyone looks at you because it obviously isn't true. So then you act fast and say that "well, things got better", which is what you just did on this forum. And your fans here go right back to calling for the wolves to be shot to pieces. It was a brilliant reference, I'm sorry you didn't catch it.
 

Mike Noles aka conman

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
Statically, Ron, no one is calling for the "wolves to be shot to pieces". Most are calling for the end of a program that was poorly managed, is a cash cow for organizations that could give a damn about affected landowners and have no stake in the consequences. The program has imposed itself on private landowners and alienated the majority of those that have had to deal with the trespass of the agents of the program.
The surviving "wolves" are not a problem, they will be gone soon enough. Coyotes ARE a problem and the protection of the coyote on private property due to this program is a farce that has to be corrected.
 

dobber

Old Mossy Horns
When you went hunting in Canada, were you successful? Did you enjoy the process and the outcome, and did the presence of live wolves perhaps even add something wild and rugged to the whole experience? If the answers are yes, why would you think that you shooting a few wolves next time would make it better?
i believe this was in NWO, the wolves have been responsible for a major decline in the deer herd. I don't hide under my bed that the bears and snow dont play a part in this as well, but knowing people up there, talking to them monthly, listening to how many cattle they lose plus the deer kills they find. Seeing a wolf in the wild is cool, great experience made all the better by having a hat and pair of gloves made from the fur.
We also have yotes up there, but when them roaming wolves are coming through not a peep from the yotes, they know they are also food. The wolves move in, kill and when things get lean they move on, traveling miles and miles, if you think they have a small home range then you have more learning to do, unless you think in very large ranges.
 

NCST8GUY

Frozen H20 Guy
Thanks for the response Ron,

No, I was not successful in Canada, though I did see one deer for about 2 seconds. That's over the course of hunting 6 days straight sunup to sundown. Others at the camp were successful, but many longtime hunters up there complained about seeing fewer and fewer deer than they used to.
 

Jett

Ten Pointer
Just FYI:


New Report: Evaluating the Taxonomic Status of the Mexican Gray Wolf and the Red Wolf

Scientists strive to develop clear rules for the naming and grouping of living organisms, but these classifications are often highly debated, since it can be difficult to determine whether the evolutionary history or future of a population is distinct enough to designate it as a unique species. There has been substantial controversy regarding the taxonomic status of red wolves and Mexican gray wolves. Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) considers the red wolf a valid taxonomic species and the Mexican gray wolf a valid taxonomic subspecies.

At the direction of Congress, FWS asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for an independent assessment of the validity of the taxonomic classifications for the Mexican gray wolf and the red wolf. A new report, Evaluating the Taxonomic Status of the Mexican Gray Wolf and the Red Wolf, offers that assessment.

Advance copies will be available to reporters only starting at noon EDT on Wednesday, March 27.

The report is embargoed and not for public release before 11 a.m. EDT on Thursday, March 28.

Reporters who wish to obtain a copy should contact the Office of News and Public Information at tel. 202-334-2138 or email news@nas.edu.

Follow us:
Twitter @theNASEM
Instagram @thenasem
Facebook @NationalAcademies
Office of News and Public Information
Sign up to receive news releases and advisories from the National Academies on the subjects that interest you.
 

Jett

Ten Pointer
As we wait for this information, make note of what USFWS Red Wolf Coordinator Michael Phillips asserted to eastern NC landowners. Keep in mind Judge Boyle just ruled that neither USFWS nor landowners are allowed to remove wolves from private land. Also note that USFWS has not attempted to appeal this ruling:

THE LIE

26806



THE LIAR - USFWS
2680726807
 
Last edited:

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
I believe this applies to the illegal fake red wolf program
View attachment 26474
Yes, Mr. Ferebee, you certainly are a salt-of-the-earth hard-scrabble down-east just-about-organic farmer kind of guy. Why, here's a picture of you in your work clothes, I'm sure the folks here would like to see that. For what it's worth, I still argue that taking wildlife conservation advice from a real estate developer is a pretty bad idea - the whole vested interest thing has a tendency to pop up unexpectedly down the road...
26833
 

corapeake

Eight Pointer
Ron,

Ad Hominem attacks don't serve anyone's best interests. By your logic one should look at you as one that is paid by left wing environmental extremists with a vested interest in keeping the Red Woof program to keep a pay check.

You can do better than that.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 

Buxndiverdux

Old Mossy Horns
Yes, Mr. Ferebee, you certainly are a salt-of-the-earth hard-scrabble down-east just-about-organic farmer kind of guy. Why, here's a picture of you in your work clothes, I'm sure the folks here would like to see that. For what it's worth, I still argue that taking wildlife conservation advice from a real estate developer is a pretty bad idea - the whole vested interest thing has a tendency to pop up unexpectedly down the road...
View attachment 26833


Actually to the contrary... I'm not a real estate developer, but I do own rural properties in 2 counties. His "vested interest" is what he has in common with every private land owner in the state.

Every "salt-of-the-earth" landowner needs an army of "suit and tie guys" to fight the good fight in Raleigh to protect landowners rights and the abuse and bullying displayed by the woof crowd.

Jett is a blessing to all private landowners and sportsmen. He just happens to be a major thorn in your side. We get it.
 

Mike Noles aka conman

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
You don't ever wear a suit, Ron? Jett is a businessman that's very successful in the private sector as is several (most) of us. Unlike you, we don't suckle from the tit of "public interest" and take money from poorly informed people by means of a NGO. If you're going to attack individuals, get ready to have your ass handed to you ?.
 
Last edited:

Take 'em

Six Pointer
Ron's Check List:

Freedom--------------------------------bad
Property rights-------------------------bad
Successful business-----------------bad
Obeying the Law----------------------bad
NGO's------------------------------------good
SPLC-------------------------------------good--Lol
Fake wolves----------------------------good
Democrat Liberal Socialism----good

Did I miss something?
 
Last edited:

stiab

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
Ron,

Ad Hominem attacks don't serve anyone's best interests.
I said the same thing to Ron several pages ago, that his personal attacks distracted from his attempts to present a "scientific" argument. But he said it was OK since people on here had attacked him. Ron, do you own a suit, and if so have you ever been photographed in it?
 

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
I'll walk you through the logic again since I don't think you followed me. Jett Ferebee is a real estate developer who owns a large tract of land in the red wolf recovery area. Real estate developers are in the business of taking land, particularly rural undeveloped land, and turning it into houses, condos, shopping malls, etc., with the goal of making as much money as possible. Real estate developers, as a group looking across the country, tend to dislike wildlife conservation laws such as the endangered species act because such laws can get in the way of turning rural land into development projects and/or reduce the profits from such activities. In this case, Jett Ferebee has led an energetic, politically-well-connected campaign to end the recovery program for the red wolf in North Carolina. It is neither unreasonable nor misguided to question his personal motives for attacking the red wolf program, nor is it unreasonable to question the possible truthfulness of some of his more outlandish claims that he has made to advance his campaign (is it true or is it not true that real estate developers as a group are known to stretch the truth in pursuit of making money?)

Asking you to consider the source when evaluating Mr. Ferebee's statements about the wolf program is not an ad hominem attack, it is a valid logical approach to this debate. I didn't say he was a bad person because he is wealthy, and I did not say that everything he says about the wolf program is false just because he's a developer. I'll continue to push back against his more coherent arguments using facts and logic.

It does amuse me, though, when he pretends to be a farmer, which is what prompted my post above.

And Mike, if you're in private business other than subsistence farming (which is not a private business), then you do just as much soliciting others for money as anyone in the nonprofit world. Ever heard of advertising? Networking? Sales? You give something in return for people's money, which if you're a successful businessman or woman costs you significantly less to deliver than the price people pay. Nonprofit conservation groups provide a service (protecting the environment and endangered species) that many people are happy to pay for.
 

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
I love Ron's whole "attack the successful" ideology. He's mentioned "wealth" multiple times in a negative manner. Lord I hope Ron never becomes a politician.
No, NCST8GUY, my ideology is more "question the successful". In the case of Ferebee's attacks on the red wolf program, cui bono (who benefits?)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: M73

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
I said the same thing to Ron several pages ago, that his personal attacks distracted from his attempts to present a "scientific" argument. But he said it was OK since people on here had attacked him. Ron, do you own a suit, and if so have you ever been photographed in it?
I think I was more nuanced than that, I believe I said that it was interesting that you don't hold yourselves to the same standards that you try to hold me to, and yet you still hope people will take your attempts at scientific arguments seriously.

Corapeake, I'd be just about as rich as Jett if I had a dollar for every time someone on this forum thread has suggested that conservation groups are just trying to save the red wolf to make money. You all repeat that over and over and over again, and never once does it even occur to you to question whether you're being misled by your own "leaders" about their own motives for attacking the red wolf program.

It's fine, hunters and real estate developers can certainly form all the alliances you want to get rid of pesky wolves. But in the end, guess who's going to win that game (and guess who is still going to have a private hunting preserve when most of you run out of places to hunt?)? Jett will be laughing all the way to the bank (his bank, as it turns out).
 

Mike Noles aka conman

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
And Mike, if you're in private business other than subsistence farming (which is not a private business), then you do just as much soliciting others for money as anyone in the nonprofit world. Ever heard of advertising? Networking? Sales? You give something in return for people's money, which if you're a successful businessman or woman costs you significantly less to deliver than the price people pay. Nonprofit conservation groups provide a service (protecting the environment and endangered species) that many people are happy to pay for.

You're definitely not a businessman, Ron. Your economic feasibility is twisted, at best. Yes, as a private business I do all that you say. However, I invest MY money in my profitability and I OWN my earned invested profits. If I fail, I don't have anyone to bail me out. Can you or any other NGO make that claim?
 

ron.sutherland2

Four Pointer
You're definitely not a businessman, Ron. Your economic feasibility is twisted, at best. Yes, as a private business I do all that you say. However, I invest MY money in my profitability and I OWN my earned invested profits. If I fail, I don't have anyone to bail me out. Can you or any other NGO make that claim?
Actually I think there are probably far more government programs and loans available to help struggling small businesses than there are for nonprofits. If we (nonprofit) run out of money we cease to exist, essentially, and we go look for other jobs.

But if you fail as a business, that basically means either your expenses were too high vs your costs, or you didn't ask enough people (I believe your phrase was more vulgar than that) to pay for your services. Why do you think it is more noble to ask people for money so that you can make money, than it is to ask people for money to do good things for the public interest?
 
  • Like
Reactions: M73

stiab

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
...I believe I said that it was interesting that you don't hold yourselves to the same standards that you try to hold me to...
That is because you are the only one on here who represents himself as a 'scientist'. Your personal insults and sophomoric attempts at humor belie your claims of participating in this tread from a well documented scientific perspective.
 

Mike Noles aka conman

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
To answer your last question,Ron, is simple. I invest MY money to make money. That's capitalism. You take others money to further others special interest and benefits for yourself and groups while investing nothing of your own. That's socialism.
 

Buxndiverdux

Old Mossy Horns
Ron,

LOL... IF you think Terrell County NC real estate is going to be a new hub of residential or commercial development. It is a recreational get away for his friends and family. It is a farm. They grow crops for profit. No different than any other farmed and wooded rural property in NC.

And if anyone has made claims, or has published guidelines and gone way off the radar and ignored their own rules for their own personal agenda, it is the woof crowd. Matter of fact, You wouldn't even be here embarrassing yourself if you didn't think you have something to gain from your own drivel.
 

ellwoodjake

Twelve Pointer
Why do you think it is more noble to ask people for money so that you can make money, than it is to ask people for money to do good things for the public interest?

Ron, none of here are opposed to doing good things for the public interest. We just don't think introducing a hybrid, apex predator to the modern landscape qualifies
 

DuckyDave

Eight Pointer
Contributor
PBS show on Red Wolf Reintroduction tonight 10pm. Will be interesting to see if an unbiased view is presented....
 

Southside

Ten Pointer
Actually I think there are probably far more government programs and loans available to help struggling small businesses than there are for nonprofits. If we (nonprofit) run out of money we cease to exist, essentially, and we go look for other jobs.

But if you fail as a business, that basically means either your expenses were too high vs your costs, or you didn't ask enough people (I believe your phrase was more vulgar than that) to pay for your services. Why do you think it is more noble to ask people for money so that you can make money, than it is to ask people for money to do good things for the public interest?
Yeah..non profit you have nothing to loose if you cease to exist.
Your last paragraph (especially) here shows you have no clue what it takes to run a private business.


Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top