Author Topic: USFWS Red Wolf Restoration Scandal  (Read 90150 times)

0 Members and 115 Guests are viewing this topic.

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 998
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USFWS Red Wolf Restoration Scandal
« Reply #688 on: August 15, 2017, 11:08:26 PM »

Here is the NCWRC public comment on the proposed Red Woof rule by Director Gordon Myers:

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director

July 24, 2017
Public Comments Processing
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2017-0006
Division of Policy
Performance and Management Programs
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters
5275 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803

Subject: FWS-R4-ES-2017-0006
Nonessential Experimental Population of Red Wolves (Canis rufus) in North Carolina

Dear Acting Director Sheehan:

This letter is to provide comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) in response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) scoping request (FR Doc. 2017-10551) for input on the proposal to change the goal of the non-essential experimental population (NEP) project for red wolves (Canis rufus) on the Albemarle Peninsula (AP), North Carolina. The goal change proposed by the Service would be to transition the current NEP Project from a goal of establishing a self-sustaining wild population of red wolves to a goal of supporting a viable captive red wolf breeding program (FR Doc. 2017-100551). The Service has put forth three alternatives: 1) maintain the NEP project with no changes in the I O(j) rule, 2) eliminate the NEP project, retaining endangered status for red wolves found in the wild, and 3) revise the NEP with other revisions to the 10(j) rule. None of these alternatives are realistic. The Service has omitted the most reasonable and achievable alternative. As I will explain herein, a fourth alternative should be added to this National Environmental Policy Act evaluative process. The fourth alternative should include the following:

1) Termination of the free-ranging NEP project on the AP,

2) Declaration of the red wolf as extinct in the wild,

3) Capture and removal from the wild of all designated red wolves and their offspring currently on the AP with translocation to the SSP population, and

4)Declaration that all free-ranging canids on the AP are state-trust resources under the management jurisdiction of the NCWRC.


Red wolves were listed as endangered in 1967 under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, initiating intensive recovery efforts. During the fall of 1973, the Service established a recovery program for the red wolf based on belief that a pure population of red wolves existed in southeast Texas and adjacent areas of Louisiana. Field work revealed extensive hybridization with coyotes across the limited remaining red wolf range. Hybridization with coyotes threatened the continued existence of the species. Therefore, all recovery efforts were redirected from protecting animals in the wild to a planned extirpation from the wild. This extreme decision to forcibly extirpate red wolves from the wild highlighted the immediate and significant threat of inter-specific breeding with coyotes. Red wolves were declared biologically extinct in the wild in 1980.

Between 1973 and 1980, 400 animals were collected from the wild to produce 14 morphologically selected founders, that would ultimately serve as a source population for the canids first released onto Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (ARNWR) in 1987 (Hinton et al. 2013). In 1986, the Service promulgated rules that provided for removal of red wolves from the Species Survival Plan Population (SSP) captive breeding program to establish a reintroduction experiment on federal lands in northeastern North Carolina. The location was selected for the following key reasons:

• It met the recovery plan goal of abundant federal lands with habitat and prey base characteristics presumed to be suitable for red wolves;
-The surrounding area had a relatively low human population; and
• Coyotes were practically non-existent on the landscape, which supported the recovery plan objective that the population be self-sustaining

The reintroduction was designated an NEP in accordance with section 10 (j) of the Endangered Species Act because the red wolf was secure in the captive breeding program. The Service's final rules stated the Service would limit their release of wolves to no more than 12 animals due to concerns about possible adverse impacts to the species resulting from removal of wolves from the captivive breeding program. However, according to Service records, 165 wolves were released between 1986 and 2014 of which 130 came from the captive breeding program and 64 occurred on private lands — actions not authorized in the Service's rules nor congruent with the goals of managing red wolves on federal lands and safeguarding the SSP.

The red wolf recovery program is predicated upon the Service's stated goal in their 1986, 1991, and 1995 rules of establishing a self-sustaining population on federal lands managed under 100) rules to minimize negative impacts of red wolves on private lands. Since initiation ofthe restoration project, active management of habitats to benefit red wolves on federal lands has been minimal, resulting in the animals using private lands (Hinton 2014), a scenario inconsistent with stated Service goals. Predominate use of private lands by red wolves continues to increasingly impact land-use options for these landowners, impacts also inconsistent with Service goals and rules (Wildlife Management Institute 2014).

In addition to the lack of quality habitat on federal lands, increases in coyote populations resulting in red wolf hybridization and introgression have threatened the viability of a unique red wolf population in the wild. These conditions, along with halting unauthorized releases of wolves have accentuated the inability to maintain a self sustaining population of red wolves in the area. Inbreeding depression and vehicular and gunshot mortality are also known to have affected red wolf population growth and viability (Hinton et al. 2013). Furthermore, the propensity of red wolves to use privately-owned lands has led to landowner conflicts, these conflicts will continue to increase over time as predicted changes in land use and availability in the area take place. Current and predicted conditions make restoration and management of a selfsustaining population of red wolves on federal lands on the AP unachievable.

On September 12, 2016, the Service issued a new call to action as it announced recommended decisions in response to an ongoing evaluation of the Red Wolf Recovery Program. The Service's decision memorandum states the wild red wolf population is projected to crash in as few as 8 years. It further concedes the species is currently not secure in captivity and recommends the captive breeding population be increased to approximately 400 animals with a minimum of 52 breeding pairs. Today, 12 founder lines are represented in the wild and captive populations. As of January 1, 2015 the captive population contained 207 wolves and 29 breeding pairs which is far short of the identified needs. The Service has identified this change as the highest priority for the red wolf recovery program.
The Service outlined proposed changes to the RWRP (USFWS 2016) following several program reviews (Faust et al. 2016, Group Solutions Inc. 2016, Wildlife Management Institute 2014). The proposed changes focused on managing the NEP and SSP as one meta-population (Faust et al. 2016). The Service proposed to restrict the wild population to the federal lands within Dare County, while reincorporating most of the animals found of NEP into the SSP to increase the genetic diversity of the SSP (Faust et al. 2016, Group Solutions Inc. 2016).

The Service's recommendation to maintain a small population of intensively managed red wolves on federal lands as part of a meta-population in Dare County is inconsistent with the captive breeding population priority objectives. Nearly 30 years after the first reintroductions and despite tubal ligations and vasectomies of coyotes, releases of 165 wolves, including 58 in Dare County, there is only one known wolf pack occupying federal lands. As red wolf restoration was being implemented on the AP, coyote distribution and density was increasing across the RWRA. Although historically absent, by 1985 coyotes had begun expanding their range into the AP (NCWRC unpubl. data, Hinton et al. 2012, Murray et al. 2014). Coyotes now occur, and can be locally abundant, throughout the entire RWRA (NCWRC unpubl. data). In the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012, reported numbers of coyotes trapped statewide increased 2600%.

Hybridization with coyotes was the impetus for forced extirpation of red wolves from the wild three decades ago. The Service has acknowledged the challenge of recovering a species which is reliant on private lands (USFWS 2016). ARNWR and the Dare County Bombing Range do not, and will not, contain adequate resources that will result in red wolves remaining on federal lands (Hinton 2014).

Thus, attempting to anchor the RWRA on inadequate federal lands is unrealistic and will put the burden on private land owners in adjacent counties. Further, the recent Population Viability Analysis (PVA) report indicates the NEP has a 2.38 times higher risk of mortality than the SSP.
citizens science, red wolf, marine fisheries, ncpol

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 998
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USFWS Red Wolf Restoration Scandal
« Reply #687 on: August 15, 2017, 07:57:13 PM »
Red Wolf Restoration Scandal

Just released -

Walter Jones Sr.  Brings the Red Wolves to NC and rewrote the ESA to do it.   

Next his son, Congressman Walter Jones Jr. former Democrat turned Republican )after he couldn't get elected) has totally failed to fix what turned out to be hoax and a fraud!

Walter B. Jones Jr.   - Another never held a real job carrier politician that continues to turn his back on his constituents and district.  While canceling meetings with private landowners, showing favor to out of state special interest, like the HSUS.





« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 08:28:40 PM by citizensscience »
citizens science, red wolf, marine fisheries, ncpol

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 998
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USFWS Red Wolf Restoration Scandal
« Reply #686 on: August 10, 2017, 05:34:03 AM »





citizens science, red wolf, marine fisheries, ncpol

lynn

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
  • Karma: +2/-0
Re: USFWS Red Wolf Restoration Scandal
« Reply #685 on: August 02, 2017, 11:24:01 PM »
It's got to be the money.

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 998
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USFWS Red Wolf Restoration Scandal
« Reply #684 on: August 02, 2017, 11:50:47 AM »
Why do #DefendersofWildlife, #AnimalWelfareInstitute and the #RedWolfCoalition continue to pursue their lawsuit against USFWS demanding they resume Adaptive Management (pup eradication) of the #RedWolf ?

Is it to save a hybrid from a hybrid?  Seems so, as that's exactly what the facts suggest...

A review of the official Red Wolf Studbook and various other records revealed in excess of 1000 canids were purposely bred and in some instances shortly thereafter prescribed a purposeful dose of life ending euthanasia. 

This is exactly what Adaptive Management is...  A plan drafted in 1999 by both Defenders and the Red Wolf Coalition among others, that's best described as "Genetic Genocide 2.0"...

Today, three donation dependent not for profits continue to utilize the puppy killing plan as the nexus of a misguided lawsuit only intended to generate headlines and pilfer the unknowing public of their donation dollars...

Defenders own CEO #JamieClark, rakes in nearly $500,000.00 per year in compensation...  Funded in part by, killing nursing puppies...











« Last Edit: August 02, 2017, 11:55:42 AM by citizensscience »
citizens science, red wolf, marine fisheries, ncpol