June 18, 2019

Using VooDoo to Justify Screw-ups With Illegal “Wolf” Introduction

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

*Editor’s Note* – This is mostly just nonsense…BS actually. Even the concept is foolishness and the lack of intelligent reasoning is void. The idea that there could actually be any kind of “control” over an experiment, even of this size, to have any concept of what is taking is place, is bunk.

First, there is no such thing as a “pure” red wolf. (As a matter of fact, by scientific definition, there is no such thing as a “pure” wolf, or coyote. We just dumb down the requirements for the money.) Most scientists believe the red wolf is nothing more than a cross-bred wild dog. Even the canine animals the Feds “introduced” were half-tame, mixed-bred, dogs. The nonsense is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is spending millions and millions of dollars attempting to illegally dump mongrel, semi-wild dogs into North Carolina, calling them red wolves and hiding behind the dysfunctional Endangered Species Act claiming they (USFWS) is required by law to “recover” the red wolf.

The latest science on coyotes, wolves, cross-breeds and hybridization shows the impossibility to protect separate species (if in fact any of them are) from cross breeding because there are too many of the beasts to begin with. With millions of coyotes/cross-breeds and tens of thousands of “wolves” (cross-breeds) the more they grow and are protected the more it is impossible to separate species regardless of how many thousands of “placeholder” coyotes are introduced. (Notice the misleading title placed on sterilized coyotes.) One would think that the Environmentalist would be fighting to actually ensure fewer canines in order to preserve the gene, but they are not. Instead, they are hinting toward continued protection and dealing with the result, naming it a new species. Is that science or politics?

Presenting some fanciful, non-workable, ridiculous notion that cross breeding can be prevented by sterilizing coyotes and placing them between packs of viable wolves and coyotes is about as smart as putting up a fence on the Mexican border thinking it will stop illegal immigration.

It is my opinion that this experiment is nothing more than a means of distracting and somehow substantiating the disaster the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service created in North Carolina. Now that they have screwed everything up in a really bad way – bad for the people/property owners and bad for the wildlife – the USFWS is going to attempt to legitimize their incompetency.

In response to this announcement, Dr. Valerius Geist commented, “Grasping for straws! And what a muddle to begin with. How much manpower will be required to keep track of “placeholders” and mating pairs? One biologist per red-wolf breeding pair? and are red wolves actually wolves?”

This nonsense deserves the “Golden Horse Excrement Award.”


One of the most endangered species is the red wolf, Canis rufus. Reintroduction of the red wolf began in 1987, but in 1993 hybridization between coyotes (Canis latrans) and wolves was documented. To reduce genetic introgression, coyotes and coyote–wolf hybrids were captured, sterilized, and released as “placeholders”. Placeholders held territories until either displaced or killed by a wolf, or management personnel removed them before releasing a wolf. We evaluated the placeholder concept by examining the number of animals sterilized and released, likelihood of displacement by a wolf, factors influencing displacements, territory fidelity of placeholders, and survival rates and causes of mortality of placeholders and wolves. Of the 182 placeholders, 125 were coyotes and 57 were hybrids. From 1999 to 2013, 51 placeholders were displaced or killed by wolves, and 16 were removed by management personnel. Thus, 37% of the placeholders were displaced leading to occupancy by a wolf. Most displacements occurred in winter (43%) and were always by the same sex. Males were more likely to be displaced than females. Home range characteristics influencing the probability of displacement included home-range size (i.e., more placeholders displaced from larger home ranges) and road density (i.e., more placeholders displaced from home ranges with lower road density). Annual survival of placeholders was higher than wolves in 12 of 14 years, with cause-specific mortality similar among wolves and placeholders. Placeholders provided territories for wolves to colonize, yet reduced the production of hybrid litters, thereby limiting genetic introgression to < 4% coyote ancestry in the wolf population.

Source: Using the “placeholder” concept to reduce genetic introgression of an endangered carnivore