Author Topic: Mexican Wolf Recovery Program USFWS "Man-Made & Artificial" Wolves  (Read 11321 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.


citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Karma: +0/-0
Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Karma: +0/-0
Mexican Gray Wolf, Wolves Owned By Mexico…
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2016, 06:06:03 PM »
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.

Citizens Science.org has obtained official documents stating; "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 communication by Citizens Science 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

McBride and his hybrid statements were supported in an official recovery document obtained by Citizens Science. "Both the recovery team and the FWSR, of course, acutely aware of the political complications involved in proposing any wolf reintroduction with stock that could in any way be criticized as not "pure" examples of the kind of wolf that historically existed in the release area. ...the FWS suggested that for the time being, captive propagation efforts use only stock captured (pure wolves) from the wild in Mexico beginning with the seven animals captured by Mr. McBride.”

Mexico’s wolf expert Jose Trevino's referred to Mexican Wolves produced as "man-made wolves" and his counterpart Poglayen called them "Artificial Wolves"…

Mysterious Disappearance – Prescribed?

Ghost Ranch – Extensive original documentation relating to the Ghost Ranch Lineage raises significant suspensions of lawlessness and Scientific Fraud within the USFWS.

•   "Origin of female founder unknown (Woody, 1986).
•   "Male founder suspected to be of Hybrid (wolf/dog) ancestry (Woody, 1986)"
•   "The skull of the male founder a key item in determining lineage origin and which is said to have been retained at ASDM,              vanished before it could be subjected to analysis (Woody, 1986).
•   Remains of neither founder are available for analysis (Hedrick, 1995, P. 3).
•   "Neither the founders (2) nor any of the animals produced by the first (3) generations of breeding in this lineage (19); or those animals most likely to have retained currently considered non-Mexican wolf alleles were examined for microsatellite variation by Wayne et al. (1995) (Hedrick, 1995, Fig. 2, p. 5).
•   "Management of the Ghost Ranch lineage has been haphazard, poorly documented and characterized by extensive full sibling and parent – sibling mating’s (Woody, 1986; Hedrick 1995, P. 3).
•   "There is a high degree of inbreeding in the Ghost Ranch lineage (Woody, 1986; McBride, pers. comm., Hedrick, 1995 p. 3.)
•   According to Hedrick (1995, p. 8): "Nowak (personal communication) also had examined the skulls of some of the other captive animals and has noted certain questionable characteristics in a few specimens, especially small teeth and bullae, which would hint at influence from the domestic dog."
•   “Phenotypic aberrations produced in the Ghost Ranch lineage included animals of two eye colors (where one eye is yellow while the other is blue), animals with floppy rather than erect ears, animals with pronouncedly shortened rostra, and animals with sickle tails carried over the back in pronounced dog fashion (McBride, pers. Comm., 1995)  According to Mr. McBride (pers. Comm., 1995), the Ghost Ranch lineage is compromised by hybridization with dogs.”
•   “As of December 7, 1995, Mr. Parsons had yet to view any living descendant of Ghost Ranch lineage firsthand (Parsons, pers. comm.,  Dec. 7, 1995).  Never the less, and without examining any of these animals first hand, Mr. Parsons pronounced them fit, to be purely “Mexican Wolf,” and to be appropriate for inclusion with the Certified lineage in July of 1995.  Mr. Parsons determination was based entirely on the results of Hedrick’s and Wayne’s yet unpublished 1995 studies which remain not generally available for public review as of January, 1996.”
•   “Of the six coyote populations sampled by Wayne et al. (1995) and compared by them to the three captive “Mexican Wolf” lineages, none are from Mexico or the Southwest (Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado or Utah)  (Hedrick, 1995, p.13 & Fig. 4, p.14).”
•   “Since coyote populations from Arizona, New Mexico, Texas Colorado or Utah were not sampled by Wayne et al. (1995), it cannot be stated that coyote populations “from throughout the United States” were examined by Wayne et al. (1995), as is inaccurately claimed by Hedrick at p. 13 of his 1995 work.”
•   “Meaningful conclusion regarding differences between coyotes and captive “Mexican Wolf” lineages is precluded by the fundamental failure of Wayne et al.  (1995) to compare coyote populations and captive “Mexican Wolf” lineages of similar biogeographic origin (Hedrick, 1995, Fig. 4, p. 14).”
•   “Wayne et al.  (1995, p. 6) cannot eliminate the possibility that the Ghost Ranch lineage originated from other North American Gray Wolves or a Dog whose offspring had backcrossed to wild wolves for several generations.”
•   “Since one of the founders (the male) is suspected to be of wolf-dog origin (Woody, 1986; McBride, pers. comm., 1995), and since the remains of neither of the Ghost Ranch lineage founders are available for analysis (Hedrick, 1995, p. 3), it is not possible to know the degree to which this founder was actually hybridized.  In other words, the founding male could have been one-quarter dog, one eighth dog, etc.  Moreover, both the initial hybrid ancestor of the founder, and the founder himself, could have been the sole progeny produced by respective litters.  If we assume that the founding male was not ½ dog, but was instead ¼ or 1/8 dog, and if we further assume that he was the sole progeny produced in litter, then the probability that we would see one of the dog alleles given as diagnostic by Hedrick would be substantially lower that the figure quoted by him.”

Conclusion –

Why did the founders of what has been widely documented as domestic Hybrid Wolves suddenly “Disappear”?  The evidence strongly suggest someone deliberately discarded these hybrid specimens to cover up their offspring “Non-ESA” protective status…
Citizens Science possesses many official documents relating to hybrids and it is 100% conclusive, the Endangered Species Act does NOT protect hybrids.

“A hybrid is defined as the offspring of two organisms (animal or plant) of different species (as defined pursuant to the Act).

“Protections of hybrids is inconsistent with the Act because it may result in the loss of the last remaining “pure” gene pools or the takeover by hybrids of habitat essential for the genome’s survival. 

Donald J. Berry, Vice President of Defenders of Wildlife and retired Assistant Solicitor USFWS, reaffirmed the USFWS opinion dated 8/2/1977 in his two page memo dated 9/21/1983,  Status of the Hybrid offspring of two endangered species.

“The August 2, 1988 memorandum incorporated the definition of “hybrid” used in the May 18, 1977 memorandum.  The position that hybrids were not covered by the ESA was reaffirmed, after consideration of additional evidence from the Office of Endangered Species, in a third opinion by the Assistant Solicitor for Fish and Wildlife to the Associate Director for Federal Assistance, dated May 6, 1981.  Given the definition employed for “hybrid”, it is apparent that a hybrid of two listed species, such as the gray and red wolves, is covered by these memoranda and should not be covered as protected by the ESA.”

Mr. Berry went on to say –  “… if two wolves of the type at issue here (hybrid) between red and gray were themselves to be bred, they would not produce purebred red wolves and purebred gray wolves.  The genetic heritage of the gray wolf and the red wolf would thus not be conserved by protection of the hybrids.  Extending the protections of the ESA to hybrids of this type would not promote the purpose of Congress in enacting the ESA.”

“For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that a hybrid whose parents are both listed species is nonetheless not covered by the ESA of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 55 1531 et sec.”

Ladies and Gentleman, USFWS deliberately discarded the Founding Specimens to cover up their hybrid origin as stated above.
CitizensScience.org


« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 06:07:35 PM by citizensscience »
Citizens Science


citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Karma: +0/-0

Citizens Science Exclusive -

Recently obtained official documents illustrating the United States Fish & Wildlife Service "Released" Mexican Asset's (Wolves) with NO Written Authority from Mexico within the bounds of the United States. 

Essentially, the USFWS released stolen wolves from Mexico against the wishes of private landowners and local government agencies.

Stay tuned as we continue to publish recently obtained documents...


Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Karma: +0/-0

Now this on the heels of the Office of Inspector Generals Report... 

Guess she's not been transferred  from the Mexican Wolf Program after-all?





Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Karma: +0/-0
USFWS, the bad neighbor who tells you what you want to hear then once they open the door on Pandora’s Hybrid Box and release their illegal wolves, USFWS then ignores their own rules…

Summary - After USFWS makes the “Sale” there is no “Service” to warranty the agreed upon contract…  Removing Wolves…


Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review December 31, 2005
AC-18 2001).

“They further point out that nowhere else in the United States does USFWS remove wolves simply for being outside a boundary in the absence of a problem.”


HCN - February 28, 1998

David Parsons, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Mexican wolf recovery leader, the boundaries will be strictly enforced. Each wolf will wear a radio collar so that it can be tracked by plane or truck, and animals that stray outside the recovery zone will be captured and returned, or held in captivity.

"There is significant concern that if wolves were returned, they'd occupy all suitable habitat in the Southwest," says Parsons, "so we made a decision to put some limits on the recovery."


But wait...  There’s more… 

Isn’t this the same David Parsons (Below) that assured the public that if Mexican Wolves boundaries would be strictly enforced?  Then going on to say, animals that stray outside the recovery zone will be captured and returned, or held in captivity.

It seems we have the 1998 David Parsons and the 2013 David Parsons… 

And we wonder why the private landowners take issue…







« Last Edit: July 22, 2016, 12:22:43 PM by citizensscience »
Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Karma: +0/-0
The Genetically Constructed Mexican Gray Wolf and the "Cost of that Construction"...







Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Karma: +0/-0
Mexican Wolf Recovery Program USFWS "Man-Made & Artificial" Wolves
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2016, 01:03:06 PM »
All Ranchers and Private Landowners should know, the USFWS 5yr Mexican Wolf Review document is incorrect in the below statement;

Mexican Wolf Blue Range Reintroduction Project 5-Year Review December 31, 2005
AC-18 2001).

“They further point out that nowhere else in the United States does USFWS remove wolves simply for being outside a boundary in the absence of a problem."

You will notice the Red Wolf population shared at the same NEP federal designation, additionally federal rules did and do allow for a Private Landowner to request the removal of any Wolf whether it's deemed to be a problem Wolf or not.  Further note Citizens Science has obtained official documents illustrating FWS Staff deliberately NOT adhering to their own published rules. 

FWS, finds themselves in a real pickle, after illegally releasing property (Wolves) that belongs to Mexico.

This is best supported by the below (note the dates).
















« Last Edit: July 21, 2016, 01:33:26 PM by citizensscience »
Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Karma: +0/-0
Norma Ames on Ownership of Mexican Wolves
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2016, 08:50:47 PM »
“Clarification of FWS’s Authority to Distribute and / or Release Mexican Wolves Within the United States” - Norma Ames

“Recent progress of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program has been somewhat hampered by the repeated statements that the Mexican Wolves in the Captive Breeding Program conducted by FWS are Property of Mexico and by the Resultant apprehension that Mexico may at any time demand physical possession of any or all of these wolves, whether wild-captured ore captive-born.” - Norma Ames
Citizens Science