July 21, 2019

Meet the Coywolf

The ignorance on display in this video, comes from two, very young, fully indoctrinated biologists who believe that coywolves inhabiting New York’s Central Park or anyplace in the cities and towns where numerous people live, is a wonderful thing.

Spoken very little of, is the potential danger these animals pose to the public, saying that, while we shouldn’t make friends with the wild canines, we should “make them uncomfortable” to be around humans. Nothing was spoken of the near 50 diseases these filthy critters can carry and spread, and that is, not only a shame, but is irresponsibility bred on ignorance and idealistic Romance Biology and VooDoo Science.


Multilocus Detection of Wolf x Dog Hybridization in Italy, and Guidelines for Marker Selection

*Editor’s Note* – The following study should come as no surprise to those with knowledge and an honest approach to scientific wolf study. Hybridization between canine species is something that happens in nature, but is exceptionally enhanced by several events, one of which is, of course, human intervention and manipulation. Wolves with the least amount of hybridization were found in geographically isolated regions. Expanding populations of wolves increases the likelihood of hybridization and that is magnified when such expansions force wolves into human-settled landscapes and especially where dogs exist and are free ranging – the more dogs the greater the risk of hybridization.

This study confirms what many of us have been saying for several years; that forcing or introducing wolves into areas that are not geographically isolated (to protect the species), promotes hybridization, which in turns leads to the destruction of the wolf gene. 

Teddy Roosevelt wrote a great deal about his observances of different species of wild canines and determined that, at that time in history, wolf species were geographically isolated, and, as such, contributed to his and other’s ability to distinguish wolf species, i.e. big wolf and little wolf.

As a society with responsibility to care for our animal species, rational thought should lead us to conclude that we should be working hard to do what we can to keep wolves – those with the least amount of mixed genes – geographically isolated. The worst thing we can do is a continuation of forcing more and more wolves onto the landscape, thus heavily promoting hybridization and a destruction of the species. Or, we can do as some have suggested: simply acknowledging that all wild dogs are a species that should be protected regardless of its genetic composition. 

That makes absolutely no sense.

<<<Read Entire Study>>>

Hybridization and introgression can impact the evolution of natural populations. Several wild canid species hybridize in nature, sometimes originating new taxa. However, hybridization with free-ranging dogs is threatening the genetic integrity of grey wolf populations (Canis lupus), or even the survival of endangered species (e.g., the Ethiopian wolf C. simensis). Efficient molecular tools to assess hybridization rates are essential in wolf conservation strategies. We evaluated the power of biparental and uniparental markers (39 autosomal and 4 Y-linked microsatellites, a melanistic deletion at the b-defensin CBD103 gene, the hypervariable domain of the mtDNA control-region) to identify the multilocus admixture patterns in wolf x dog hybrids. We used empirical data from 2 hybrid groups with different histories: 30 presumptive natural hybrids from Italy and 73 Czechoslovakian wolfdogs of known hybrid origin, as well as simulated data. We assessed the efficiency of various marker combinations and reference samples in admixture analyses using 69 dogs of different breeds and 99 wolves from Italy, Balkans and Carpathian Mountains. Results confirmed the occurrence of hybrids in Italy, some of them showing anomalous phenotypic traits and exogenous mtDNA or Y-chromosome introgression. Hybridization was mostly attributable to village dogs and not strictly patrilineal. The melanistic b-defensin deletion was found only in Italian dogs and in putative hybrids. The 24 most divergent microsatellites (largest wolf-dog FST values) were equally or more informative than the entire panel of 39 loci. A smaller panel of 12 microsatellites increased risks to identify false admixed individuals. The frequency of F1 and F2 was lower than backcrosses or introgressed individuals, suggesting hybridization already occurred some
generations in the past, during early phases of wolf expansion from their historical core areas. Empirical and simulated data indicated the identification of the past generation backcrosses is always uncertain, and a larger number of ancestryinformative markers is needed.

The frequency of backcrosses or introgressed individuals (87.5%) between wolf and dog is far higher than the frequency of F1 and F2 hybrids (12.5%), suggesting that hybridization events already occurred in Italy some generations in the past. Probably this happened during the early phases of population re-expansion in Italy, when wolves moved from their historical core areas in the central-southern Apennines and colonized the northern Apennine mountains and lower hills [61]. Theoretical expectations [97] and empirical findings [29,43] indicate that the risk of hybridization is higher in the periphery of wolf distributions in human-dominated landscapes, where wolf populations are less dense, free-ranging dogs are more abundant and early dispersing wolves have more probabilities to meet and mate with dogs. Expanding wolf populations will inevitably spread further into anthropogenically altered areas, where settlement density, infrastructure and the presence of agricultural activities will likely increase traffic
casualties, illegal wolf killings. Consequently high pack turnover can contribute to further raise hybridization frequency. These findings suggest that: 1) expanding wolf populations may experience higher hybridization risks than stable populations; 2) the dynamics of hybridization and introgression will change through time, with a maximum expectancy of hybridization during the early phases of the colonization waves, followed by the subsequent spread of hybrids and the generation of backcrosses within wild populations. The spatial and temporal dynamics of hybridization and backcrossing should be conditioned by landscape features, anthropogenic factors, wolf and feral dog initial
population density and colonization rates. These variables could be modelled using landscape genetic tools to reconstruct maps of hybridization risks, thus providing important resources for the monitoring and management of wolf populations in Europe.


“Time to Cry Wolf” and Predator Disease Warnings


The other day I was sent an article and the link to that article found at “Western Cowman.” The article, “Time to Cry Wolf – Damaging Impacts of Predator Diseases on Wildlife, Livestock and Humans.”, was written by Heather Smith Thomas. It contains valuable information and is a good piece that helps to sum up the difficulties being realized now here in the United States about diseases carried by and perpetuated by wild canines, i.e. mostly coyotes and wolves. I have also provided on this website, under “Wildlife Diseases”, both Echinococcus granulosus and Neospora Caninum, a link to this article.

I read the article and then reread the article. I left it for a day or two and then reread it a third time and studied it a bit closer. In it I discovered some information that has come up before and has been the cause of a bit of controversy and confusion. It shouldn’t be. As part of my research into this, I contacted Dr. Delane Kritsky, a parasitologist at Idaho State University. I sent him the article and highlighted the part that bothered me. Here is that part:

Check the vital organs of big game, looking closely for small white or reddish balloon-shapes that might be cysts. If there are any, be careful not to puncture them. The fluid from one of these cysts can be dangerous, especially if the gunshot wound penetrated an infected organ. Ingestion of Hydatid cyst fluid can cause development of these cysts in humans.(emboldening added as I did in the copy I sent to Dr. Kritsky.)

Dr. Kritsky’s response to this was: “Again, I don’t know of any reports of persons becoming infected from ingesting or handling cysts (or their contents).”

I had previously, in February of 2013, sent Dr. Kritsky a copy of a report I had received from Clay Dethlefson of the Western Predator Control Association. That report is made available on this website.

In that report, Dethlefson states:

Fact–Humans get secondary Hydatid Cyst from internally located bursting and/or seeping Cysts.

Too, in the case of humans (hunters, butchers, etc.) it is not only feasible but it is truly possible for people to get Hydatid Cysts from an ungulate’s exposed Hydatid Cysts. This occurs when Hydatid Sand from a Cyst that has burst and/or is seeping comes into contacted with a human’s transmission means, and thereafter, this Hydatid Cyst Fluid (with viable Protoscolices) enters external body orifices. Transmission by hands or by having Sand surge or gush in some other manner into external orifices of the body are such means; hence, Cysts do not occur just from direct involvement with E.g. Eggs.

At that time Dr. Kritsky responded that the information was true that this can happen but emphasized that, “there is no danger in becoming infected just by handling (or eating) a cyst that might have been present in a harvested animal.”

As a confirmation, is the reason I once again contacted Dr. Kritsky about any dangers. The object here is not to dispute anyone’s claims or find fault with reports and statements. The goal is to pass on to the many hunters, trappers, fishermen and outdoor enthusiasts as much fact about disease dangers as can be assessed.

As part of my email to Dr. Kritsky, I asked a couple more questions. Here are those questions and Dr. Kritsky’s answers are within quotes.

Question One: How dangerous is rupturing a cyst in a deer, moose or elk to humans?
Answer: “I wouldn’t hesitate to handle a cyst (ruptured or not).”

Question Two: As far as eating the meat, cooking should take care of any threats, shouldn’t it?
Answer: “Two cysts, adults and eggs, are easily killed with heat.”

It appears that we are dealing with possibilities and probabilities. According to both of these sources, Dethlefson and Kritsky, it is possible that a ruptured hydatid cyst found in a human and a wild ungulate (deer, moose, elk, etc.) can result in secondary hydatid cysts occurring. However it appears as though the probability is quite low. The individual must weigh the risks based on factual information.

In this regard I queried Dr. Kritsky about taking precautions. His answer was, “I suppose it doesn’t hurt to take precautions–after all, nothing is definitively correct in science–we are always disproving ideas(and never prove them).

It has always been my content that outdoor sportsmen, before they can make responsible decisions on what risks they are willing to take, have to have the facts and understand them in order to do that. While this discussion has been mostly about the threat of contracting Hydatid disease from a ruptured, exciting cyst, sportsmen need to understand that the greatest danger comes from the risk of ingesting the tiny eggs found in canine feces, a product that dots the landscape by the millions, perhaps billions.

There are warnings published in the “Time to Cry Wolf” article and the precautions all of us should take when living in and being in the outdoors where Echinococcus granulosus exists. For your own safety, I recommend following those recommendations.