From the Susquehannock Wildlife Society:
It was a clear, moonlit night at the Susquehannock Wildlife Center. After a long evening of construction work on the facility, we huddled around a small campfire, enjoying the last remnants of warm autumn weather before winter would start to creep in. Suddenly, up the hill to the north, we heard a short howl followed by a cacophony of yips coming from a multitude of creatures. Startled by the unexpected wild chorus, we fell silent, listening intently. Our heads whipped in the opposite direction as a longer howl came from the nearby Deer Creek. We knew what we were hearing. Eastern coyotes! The sounds then started to move, converging towards each other, following the treeline to the east and then south.
We had just recently captured a photograph of an individual at our site on a trail camera, but never had we been privileged to take part in this primal communication. To us, it felt like a long lost component had returned to the landscape. With each day we gain a great appreciation of the incredible diversity of species found on this preserved piece of land that together with Maryland Department of Natural Resources we worked hard to protect. As much value as we see to a new predator finding its place in the ecosystem, our sentiment is not echoed among much of the public.
It is astounding that an animal so beloved in its domestic form could be so hated and feared in the form of its wild cousins – wolves and coyotes. We believe that hunting of our native wildlife can have a place for both human sustenance and resource management. However, the senseless killing of our predators out of fear and misinformation is something that our society must learn to overcome. The mythology of the “big bad wolf” created through werewolf folklore, inaccurate adventure movies, and special interest groups throughout time has caused many predator populations to plummet and even disappear.
Even today, struggling wild canines like the gray or timber wolf in certain western states and the endangered red wolf that was reintroduced in North Carolina are being persecuted because of some negative yet relatively small impacts on livestock or unfounded fear of attacks on humans. Many vocal opponents also point to their perceived large scale destruction of prized game species which in reality may just be starting to become more difficult to hunt because of a change in behavior where prey is more cautious and less likely to linger in the open.
In the not too distant past, Harford County was a very different place. Up until perhaps as late as the 19th century, we still had wolves roaming the river valleys and rolling hills of our great lands bordering the Susquehanna. Unlike the trophy hunting of species like the white-tailed deer by man that often selects the strongest and most desirable prey to be harvested (large size, biggest antlers, etc), wild predators such as coyotes, if they decide to pursue a deer, usually select the youngest, injured and weak which in turn ensures that the strongest genes survive while the weaker genes are weeded out over time. Included in this diet are species like fox and raccoon that until recently lacked any significant natural predators other than humans and their cars. Rodent species are also particularly harmful to crops and spread diseases when overpopulated. Rodents such as mice, rabbits, voles, and groundhogs actually comprise the bulk of a coyote’s diet, which changes throughout the seasons with carrion, berries, and insects also being included. Predators are good for the ecosystem. In some recent studies, the return of wolves out west in places like Yellowstone have shown to allow populations of many seemingly unrelated species to rebound because wolves change the behavior of their prey that otherwise overgraze critical vegetation. Keeping prey species such as deer on the move means they will be less destructive.
One powerful example of this impact is perhaps the most unlikely and close to our hearts. Other than habitat loss one of the biggest threats to Maryland’s state insect, the Baltimore Checkerspot butterfly, is that deer eat their host plant, the white turtlehead. Where populations of this plant exist or ingredients are right for them to reestablish, keeping deer on the move so they don’t overgraze all of these critical plant could actually help return this rare butterfly to portions of our landscape.
What happened to the wolves and what can we learn from their disappearance? For many years, bounties were set and they were hunted relentlessly from across the lower 48 states until timber wolf populations only remaining in Canada and Alaska. A small population of red wolves, found in the southeast and believed to once also inhabit Maryland, was recovered in Louisiana and eastern Texas to be put into a breeding program to protect them from extinction. A first of its kind predator reintroduction program of a species extinct in the wild started in the 1980’s and continues, although with much resistance from some hunters and livestock owners in eastern North Carolina.
Now there are a little over one hundred red wolves in the wild but even with that initial success, the program is at risk of losing federal support largely due to some local opposition from private land owners, hunters, and more specifically those who resist regulations that restrict hunting of coyotes in areas where they can be confused with red wolves. In the last decades gray wolves have begun to return in many western and Great Lakes states, also with much controversy. As soon as populations have reached a sustainable level, the wolves have been delisted and intense hunting would resume, breaking up complex social hierarchies found in the packs and putting the species back at risk as numbers would start to decline.
At the same time the more adaptable and opportunistic western coyote, originally found in the plains and western states, began to rebound and spread into new territory. As these smaller cousins of the wolf moved through Canada they interacted with the sparse populations of remaining wolves and sometimes bred out of necessity for species survival. The strongest genes of both species perpetuated, creating a new hybrid subspecies, the eastern coyote, that recent genetic studies show is potentially 65% western coyote, 25% wolf, and even 10% dog. These percentages vary depending on where in its range the coyote is found. Those further north have more wolf with the number decreasing as you go further south This slightly larger, even more adaptable hybrid that some have nicknamed the “coywolf” is able to hunt in both forested area and open spaces. Indirectly, we created this new hybrid through our removal of a top predator. Over the last century the coyote has established itself across all of Maryland and most of the eastern United States. Despite stories of the contrary, they were not intentionally introduced but part of a natural migration spurred by the removal of wolves and other predators. It is here to stay so how do we coexist with it? Should we repeat our mistakes again or allow this new ecosystem that in many ways we have created to have a chance to balance itself out?
We recommend that these newcomers are given a chance. As with any wild animal, if they show signs of aggression towards humans or don’t show the typical fear response than call the proper authorities such as an animal removal, coyote removal company or a local wildlife agency if a potentially rabid or dangerous individual has become too accustomed to humans. Coyotes are usually afraid of people and should flee when encountered. Even when found in suburban areas they tend to avoid people. Securing your trash and not leaving pet food outside can also reduce the potential for negative encounters. While coyotes have been known to prey upon small dogs or cats, this can be avoided in part by fencing in your property, not feeding animals outside, and not leaving pets outside for extended periods at night when coyotes are most active. We cannot allow the low probability of negative impacts outweigh the potential good that a species may provide. It is our hope that through further research and compassion that we may coexist; sharing our land with these wild dogs that are just trying to survive in a foreign land.
For more information about this or other local wildlife issues, contact the Susquehannock Wildlife Society at 443-333-WILD (-9453) or visit our web site at http://www.suskywildlife.org.
Agreed and very well put. Coyotes are an important part of any balanced ecosystem regardless of the ignorance and fear some people hold for this species.
You obviously don’t raise sheep.
They are important to the ecosystem…but only when an apex predator like the wolf is also inhabiting the land. Without an apex predator to keep them in check their population grows exponentially creating a very unbalanced and unhealthy ecosystem. You have to remember coyotes are scavengers/small prey hunters, the only other predators in this area fit that same niche. So adding another species that plays the same role will only add more stress. Either reintroduce the wolf or kill the coyotes.
A coyote tried to eat my 11 year old cat while he slept on my front porch in his bed. Kill them all that’s my motto.
Sorry. The coyote must have made a mistake. He didn’t realize a cat must be 12 or older before he can kill it.
If we were ever to assign ethics to animals – a coyote would come out as far superior. Cat’s kill stuff by the hundreds and for no good reason – after the fun is over they just leave it there to rot, coyotes kill for food. Which is better in the environment? That shouldn’t take you all day to figure out. Since a coyote is about the only thing around that will stalk and kill a cat I’m hoping we get more coyotes because we definitely have too many wandering cats.
I was fowarded an interesting read with respect to the red wolf, no denying much conversation has been ongoing for over 30 years but the specifics in this email are very disturbing since they seem to suggest agenda driven science. I for one hope the red wolf does not serve to undermine the Endangered Species Act, nevertheless if a zoo created an endangered species that might not be seen as favorable.
Date: Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:34 PM
To:
Subject: Alleged Fraudulent Breeding Practices & Deliberately Contaminating Scientific Canid DNA Database(s) by USFWS Captive Breeding Program / Point Defiance Zoo (PDZ)
Mr. Hast,
Please consider this as a formal allegation of additional Scientific and Academia Fraudulently activity. The below paper written by International Wolf Researcher Kaj Granlund provides a clear look into what appears to be the largest Wildlife Fraud ($33M) in United States history.
Mr. Granlunds comments could best be summarized as the USFWS / Point Defiance Zoo (Captive Breeding Facility) artificially invented an Canid, named it the Canis rufus (Red Wolf) and called it an endangered species while eroding and illegally encroaching (illegally released 64 red wolves) on Private Property Rights. 2014 Correspondence – DOl Solicitor to Leo Miranda
The Point Defiance Zoo and USFWS may have long suppressed the facts that would have exposed the below statements made by Mr. Granlund as suggesting the purging “Removal” of the original hybrids from the studbook.
Mr. Granlunds statements and accusations are further supported within the of the 1999 PVHA Minutes (Link Below). I would strongly urge the OIG to investigate the funding the Point Defiance has received, as documents show over $700K in federal grants having gone to the PDZ in 2013 alone.
It is of cardinal importance to note the first litter of captive red wolf pups was born at the Point Defiance Zoos Captive Breeding Facility on May 3, 1977, with each being identified and logged as hybrids within the SSP Studbook. 2013 Red Wolf Studbook 2013
In a brief matter of days between May 3, 1977 and May 18, 1977 the Special Agent in Charge, Region 5, wrote the Assistant Solicitor, USFWS seeking clarification as to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) status of a hybrid wolf, both of who’s parents are listed as “endangered or threatened” under the ESA. Given the timeline it seems to strongly suggest the inquiry centered around the May 3 hybrid litter and or the second hybrid litter born May 4, 1977. While it was initially communicated hybrids were covered under the ESA this was reconsidered in a subsequent memorandum, dated August 2, 1977, from the Acting Assistant Solicitor for Fish and Wildlife to the Deputy Associate Director for Federal Assistance. Based on more extensive information from the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as to the effects of treating hybrid as listed, and in light of the purpose of the ESA the August 2, 1977 opinion concluded that hybrids of listed species were not subject to the ESA’s protection.
The August 2, 1977 memorandum incorporated the definition of “hybrid” used in the May 18, 1977 memorandum. This 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 considered as protected by the ESA.
The August 2, 1977 memorandum examined the legislative history of the ESA and concluded that its overriding purpose was to conserve and protect the genetic heritage of endangered species. Treating hybrids as protected under the ESA would defeat this purpose, since hybrids would be entitled to the same legal protections and conservation measures as a purebred specimen.
The Service has in the past taken the position that hybridization is a threat to species and may, indeed, be a threat such as to support listing as endangered or threatened. See 40 Fed. Reg. 29863-64. This view of hybridization as a threat to a species has been cited, without criticism, by at least one federal district court. See Conner v. Andrus, . 453 F.Supp. 1037, 1041 (D.tex.1978) (‘Clearly the record and evidence in this case demonstrate that the Mexican duck is threaten by the destruction of its natural habitat. Additionally, it shows that the other danger is hybridization with the mallard.’)
This same reasoning would apply to hybrids whose parents are both listed species. While the entire genetic stock of such a hybrid would be that of the two endangered species, it would not be in such a form as to protect either of the two pure genetic stocks of the parents. That is to say, if two wolves of the type at issue here (hybrids 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 purposes of Congress in enacting the ESA.
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that a hybrid who’s parents are both listed species is nonetheless not covered by the ESA of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 55 1531 et sec. Thus requiring the USFWS to formally delist what became known as the Canis Rufus (Red Wolf) given its hybrid origin and alleged deliberate effort to suppress the hybrid facts of the founders after Donald J. Berry, Assistant Solicitor for Fish and Wildlife stated the “overriding purpose” was to preserve and protect the genetic heritage of endangered species. “Affording protections to hybrids would defeat this purpose”.
Please confirm recept.
Thank you
The PVHA Working Group Quotes:
1999 Red Wolf Pop. & Habitat Viability Assessment 4_1999
“Societal and legal repercussions, Endangered Species Act ESA considerations, administrative considerations, considerations and reaction of general public, etc the “mutt” response.”
“Nowak discussed the issue of reticulate patters as being natural.” “It may be difficult to save something i.e., the red wolf that might not be considered natural.” “He described the movement of coyotes across the country and argued that we no longer had true red wolves or true coyotes — they are part coyote / wolves and red wolf /coyotes.” “Regardless, he thought we should save the current population in a wildlife area as a national monument.”
“Some discussion took place concerning the likelihood of reaching a resolution concerning the evolutionary origins of red wolves.” “Bob Wayne [UCLA] argued for avoiding discussion of the question of red wolf origins our of deference for restoring red wolves, because elucidation of origins is intractable.”
“The suite of morphological features used to originally define the red wolf have not been figured for the current captive population.” “If they are going to be used to identify hybrids it could help to characterize the current captive population.”
“Have original hybrids now been removed from the studbook?”
Preserved to Extinction by – Kaj Granlund January 25, 2014
Reference Pages 68 / 126 http://www.academia.edu/6425898/The_…n_Kaj_Granlund
The Red Wolf
“The red wolf (Canis rufus) has gone through an interesting evolution.” “It was thought to be extinct in the wild by 1980, but after the introduction of a captive breeding program, the animals are now breeding successfully in the wild.” “The red wolf is morphologically midway between grey wolves and coyotes, and genetic analysis has indicated that it may carry genes from coyotes.”
“In the red wolf recovery program, canids released into the wild were genetically fingerprinted and subsequent generations were tested against these canids.” “Any canids showing signs of hybridization were euthanized.”
“In other words, the red wolf recovery began with a hybrid, and all DNA databases were populated with samples from these first ”pure red wolves”.
“In this case, it was necessary to accept that the only viable path to re-establishment carried this risk of genetic pollution.”
“Genetic Pollution is currently defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as: Uncontrolled spread of genetic information into the genomes of organisms in which such genes are not present in nature.”
“The name, the authority, and selected methods of science can sometimes be mis-used (in the short term) to cherry-pick evidence in support of an arbitrary belief.” “I believe this is exactly what happened with the red wolf in the 1970’s.”
“After a “scientific” program of morphological evaluation and selection, the final truth was called the pure red wolf.”
“In the red wolf recovery program, all animals released into the wild were genetically fingerprinted, and these “fingerprints” established the source for all subsequent DNA analysis.” “In principle science is a self-correcting discipline, but it is difficult to see in this instance how one would prove that the red wolf is or is not a fabrication with no genuine lineage in natural history.”
“The red wolf is whatever biologists decided they wanted to call a red wolf.”
“Did they create a new species?” “Have there been red wolves in the past, or are they simply hybrids of grey wolves and coyotes?” “Whatever happened in the past, human intervention created something we call Canis rufus.”
“After reference data was collected into databases, it is possible using DNA analysis to prove that any wolf and coyote hybrid matching these “fingerprints” is a pure red wolf.”
“Contaminated DNA Samples are not our only concern.” “Another concern is the contamination of databases and reference libraries.” “There are examples of how “endangered species” have been reintroduced simply by using contaminated databases and introducing possible hybrids raised by breeders – instead of allowing the original species to reproduce in the wild.”
Should the above prove true, the USFWS and Point Defiance Zoo (PDZ) have succeeded in a $33M spend to declare what was left of the red wolf “Functionally Extinct” then selectively bred and humanly altered the remaining “evolutionary” population leaving nothing of any natural historical value to the ecosystem as the coyote now occupies the landscape as the top predator.
So when was the monarch butterfly replaced with the Baltimore Checkerspot as the state Insect?
Since 1973. (Chapter 253, Acts of 1973; Code General Provisions Article, sec. 7-308)
But I dont believe it was the monarch before that, I think that was the first recording of a MD state butterfly.
“Even today, struggling wild canines like the gray or timber wolf in certain western states and the endangered red wolf that was reintroduced in North Carolina are being persecuted because of some negative yet relatively small impacts on livestock or unfounded fear of attacks on humans. Many vocal opponents also point to their perceived large scale destruction of prized game species which in reality may just be starting to become more difficult to hunt because of a change in behavior where prey is more cautious and less likely to linger in the open. ”
Taylor Mitchell would like to talk to you about that “unfounded fear of attacks.”
And
“It is our hope that through further research and compassion that we may coexist; sharing our land with these wild dogs that are just trying to survive in a foreign land.”
In almost all biological systems, the goal is to prevent invasion, not welcome it.
Maryland allows the use of dogs, electronic calls, lights, and night hunting to kill coyotes, with no bag limits to prevent that invasion.
You yourself know that coyote attacks are so rare that this is about the only instance of an attack you can cite. Sad for this lady but one instance does not justify misplaced fears. In the meantime how many shootings last night in Chicago? Baltimore? When I worry about bad stuff that might happen my mind doesn’t so much center on coyotes. I saw a coyote last year – won’t say exactly where but it was not so far out of Bel Air and very near the Winters Run watershed. It was sitting on a hill – sun just coming up and I first saw the eyes; like a “where’s waldo” moment; in the grass nearly invisible except for those yellow eyes. Too big for a fox – we stopped; it looked at us, we at it and I was overjoyed to see it there. It might still be in the area although I’d bet not. They’re here already – deal with it. By the way if people loved their pets take care of them – if they wander it’s on you if they end up as a meal.
Well, as long as they don’t eat the children….and the chickens, I guess it will be alright. Oh, by the way, I have a nice fat groundhog living under my back porch that I cannot trap without a license – or pay a humongous fee to have trapped.
I walk about quite a bit and have had the opportunity hear Coyotes howeling and running in a pack. For my own safety, I had considered arming myself only because I was ignorante of how important these beautiful creatures are. I had seen a big male up close and could see my German Shepard. After seeing how majestic these animals are, I have no intention of harming them. I have gone as far as asking my neighbor whom hunt to not kill them.Although, I think it is not illegal to kill one.If I know anyone aiming to harm a Coyote I try to convince them it’s all in the “circle of life”.
All I can say is, if you have small pets, keep them in after dark.
I Guess none of you raise Cattle either. Coyotes have killed over 500 calves a year in VA. I have not seen a report in MD recently but know other farmers who have told me of attacks. I do not like loss of income due to predators killing my cattle!